Parliament “Absentee Landlords" Accused In Debate

Press, Volume C, Issue 29557, 5 July 1961, Page 16

Parliament “Absentee Landlords" Accused In Debate

(NZ Preu Association) WELLINGTON, July 4. A former Minister in the Labour Government and a leading trade union official were accused of being absentee landlords by Mr W. A. Sheat (Government, Egm on t) in a brisk debate on the introduction of a Land Settlement Promotion Amendment Bill in the House of Representatives today. The Opposition bitterly criticised the bill which repeals the compulsory residential provisions of the Labour-sponsored 1959 Land Settlement Promotion Amendment Act. Labour members alleged that the 1952 act introduced for the previous National Government by Mr E. B. Corbett, which contained a three-year compulsory residential clause, was watered down because of pressure exerted on Mr Corbett from both inside and outside Parliament.

This caused the Prime Minister (Mr Holyoake) angrily to slam the lid of his desk and rise to protest to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Nash) that such remarks, now that Mr Corbett was no longer in the House were at best bad taste, and be submitted, disorderly. “You would know something about that,” Mr Nash retorted.

Mr Sheat said the Opposition attack on the bill was “the greatest exhibition of humbug." “What about trade-union-official absentee landlords owning large tracts of land they never lived on?" he asked.

“What are we to say about a former Minister of the Labour Cabinet who bought land but never lived on it? “He was still a Minister when he undertook to live on it and yet I am informed he did not and has no intentention of living on it” Mr Sheat said. Government voices: What? “LEGALISE” POSITION Mr Sheat said it might be necessary to pass the bill to “legalise” the position of “some former Labour members.” The 1959 legislation was put on to the Statute Book with the vote of the former member concerned, he said. Initiating the attack on the bill, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Skinner), who was Minister of Agriculture and in charge of the Labour Government’s Land Settlement Promotion legislation, said he felt the Government was making a grave mistake in interfering with what had been, in the first instance, its own legislation. It would benefit only those farmers who wanted to get out of farming. Mr Skinner said a grave mistake was being made in interfering with legislation which was making more farms available to genuine farmers than would otherwise have been available. Mr Gerard: That is a matter of opinion. Mr Skinner: It is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact He said he could not see very many farmers being happy about the bill except! those who wanted to get out of farming and who would be able to see the prospect of a higher price for their land from speculators. “It is simply taking away from genuine farmers an opportunity they have at present. I cannot understand the Government turning its back on its own legislation in this way. It will be looked on with a great deal of apprehension by young farmers.” NOT REPEALED Mr Gerard said the 1952 legislation introduced by the previous National Government ran out in 1955. It was not repealed. Mr Skinner’s own legislation (introduced and passed in 1959) was to run out in August, 1962. “It was obviously not a long-standing measure even with the Labour Government” The National Party’s election policy had pledged the introduction of the present bill, he said. M. Gerard denied Mr Skinner's argument that the legislation being repealed assisted farmers in the acquisition of a farm.

“No-one has got a farm through this legislation as far as I can find out,” he said., On the other hand, the new legislation gave opportunities to young men seeking farms They could get share-milk-ing positions from absentee owners or managerial positions from absentee owners and thus save for their own farms.

Mr N. E. Kirk (Opposition. Lyttelton) said the bill was one of the most retrograde steps that could be taken. It struck at closer settlement of the land.

Mr A. H. Nordmeyer (Opposition, Island Bay) said Mr Gerard had given a number of very good reasons why the bill should not be introduced.

“More farms are to be owned by absentee owners and the people who work on them are not to have the opportunity to own these farms,” he said.

“Mr Corbett recognised the evils of extension of absentee ownership I am sure that if he were still here he would not be introducing this bill” Mr Nordmeyer said the National Party had given a number of pledges in the election campaign that appeared to have been overlooked. and it was therefore no argument that this bill was being introduced because of an election pledge. The Prime Minister had given his pledge that immediately on taking office, a National Government would reduce taxation. Mr Holyoake laughed. •‘The Prime Minister Is; laughing at his own state-, ment," said Mr Nordmeyer. ’’The whole country is; laughing at you.” retorted the, Pr.me Minister. A point of order on relev. ancy then brought Mr Holycake to his feet to explain this election pledge. “At the first opportunity,”!

h'- explained, meant at thi "first legislative oppor tunity.” "The pledge of mine o March last will be fulfilled it exactly the same fashion —a the first legislative oppor tunity.” Mr A. J. Faulkner (Opposi tion, RoskilD: Given norma

circumstances. Mr Holyoake: Yes. Mr Holyoake said that when the 1952 legislation was introduced resettlement of former servicemen was at its height and was given first priority at whatever the cost of loss of personal freedom. The three years the legislation was in force saw the back of the problem broken. Today there were fewer than 200 former servicemen awaiting settlement on the land. Mr M. Moohan (Opposition. Petone): Mr Corbett had nothing in his mind except a new land policy for New Zealand without speculators. Mr Holyoake: Why did he have it in the bill for only three years? Opposition voices: Because of the pressure put on him. Mr Moohan: He (Mr Corbett) had a distinct dislike of absentee landlords. Mr G. F. Sim (Government, Waikato): That’s why you attacked him. Mr Skinner: Not on this one we didn’t. COMPANY INVESTMENTS Mr Faulkner said there was a growing practice of limited liability companies investing their reserves in land which then did not even grow a “blade of grass,’’ or was partly farmed with store stock. These companies invested their reserves this way because land appreciated in value at the same rate that money declined in value.

Mr Sim: Thinking of Mr Holloway? Mr Faulkner: This Government is giving the green

ae light again for big people to j r- make something out of the little people. of Mr D. J. Carter (Govemin ment, Raglan) warned that in at view of developments in the r- European Common Market, amalgamation of farms in ii- New Zealand might be al needed in days to come.

Mr Nash said the bill would interfere with productivity and would inevitably send land prices higher. He recommended that the bill be sent to the lands committee of the House. Mr Holyoake said the bill would not be sent to the lands committee. PROVISIONS The compulsory residential provisions of the Land Settlement Promotion Act. 1952, as amended by a 1959 Act. are abolished by a Land Settlement Promotion Amendment Bill introduced today. These provisions required the purchaser or lessee of farm land personally to reside on the land and farm it exclusively for his own use, unless the Minister of Lands had consented to the transaction or the Land Valuation Court had dispensed with the personal residence. These provisions would have expired on August 31, 1962. The principal act provides that unless the Minister of Lands has consented, the Land Valuation Court or a land valuation committee may not make an order consenting to any transaction where the purchaser or lessee is a trustee and any beneficiary under the trust is under 17.

Similar provisions apply to a company with fewer than 10 members where any shareholder is under 17. The bill transfers the discretionary power to consent in such cases to the Land Valuation Court or a committee.