Land aggregation report ‘biased’

Press, 13 August 1979, Page 7

Land aggregation report ‘biased’

The Farm Workers’ Association has dissociated itself from a report which claims to represent the majority view of a working party set up to review land aggregation in New Zealand. The association, which was a member of the working party set up by the Government, said there was a strong bias against most of the groups who had taken part in the review. It has withdrawn its support for a report prepared by the chairman of the working party, Mr John Kneebone, a former president of Federated Farmers. In its submissions on the report, the association said the evidence used to prepare the conclusions had been correlated “with a disregard of impartiality.” This had been done to such an extent that in the most relevant areas a minority view of the working party had been reported. The report should have reported the stance of the majority of the members and should have stated the minority view as the exception, not the opposite as had occurred. “The report handed to

the Minister bears no resemblance to the draft report that the working party spent a day discussing and correcting," said the association. It said the majority of those on the working party had not been able to alter some parts of the draft during the correcting process and the same incorrect statements had been included in the report to the Minister without reference to the majority argument. The association had prepared three foolscap pages of typed comment on the report but these dealt only with "the more major misrepresentations rather than .. . the continuous bias that prevails.”

Under its terms of reference the Land Purchase Bill working party had to try to reach agreement on the need for measures to prevent undue land aggregation in New Zealand and the extent of such measures.

It met monthly from last September to May. As examples of alleged ‘‘major m i srepresentations” in the Kneebone report. The association said it had been reported that the working party had found no evidence to support the

retention of the powers of compulsory acquisition of farmland as outlined in part one of the Land Setlement, Promotion, and Land. Acquisition Act, 1952.

But the majority of individual submissions to the working party had sought the retention of compulsory acquisition in a modified form. The association also gave evidence supporting controls on land sales. It said the Kneebone report claimed there had been no evidence to support control on land sales. The report discussed allegations that the device of using a 10-man company to flout existing land-ownership legislation was “rife” but had concluded that most of them would qualify as bona fide purchases.

The association said it had been unanimous among all members of the working party, with the exception of Federated Farmers, that the 10-man-company loophole should be closed as soon as possible. The association listed 13 sections of the report which it said were in conflict with the views of other members of the working party.