LAND FOR FARMS

Dominion, Volume 34, Issue 135, 4 March 1941, Page 9

LAND FOR FARMS

Areas For Settlement [Of Soldiers RESPONSIBILITY OF GOVERNMENT

Acquisition Of Properties

“The Government must accept the responsibility, within reasonable limits, of'providing farms for our men returning from service in this war/’ said the Minister oi Lands, Mr. Langstone, when discussing in an interview last evening the Government’s policy in regard to the acquisition of land for _ the settlement of discharged soldiers. The Minister said it was imperative that land of the right type for this purpose be acquired, and that the areas settled should be well spread out in districts where roads, schools, transport, markets and other amenities were already in existence. Mr. Langstone said it was open to any. property owner to negotiate on a voluntary basis for purchase of properties, and where there was an agreement regarding price, the purchase could be completed. He hoped that most acquisitions would be .carried out on this basis.It was recognized that when the Crown desired to acquire a property from an owner unwilling to negotiate, legal machinery must be available to acquire it compulsorily. The experience over a long period of years had been that compensation awards were always adverse to the Crown, and there was also the fact that, under existing laws, the proceedings to reach finality could be drawn out over a long period. To overcome these anomalies the Small Farms Amendment Act was introduced, laying down a simple and equitable procedure to guide the Compensation Court when dealing with “compulsory purchases.” Receipts and Expenses. Each party to the deal would appoint an assessor, and the Court would be presided over by a magistrate, who would be specially selectee: for this work. Full returns of receipts and expenditure similar to those used by the Mortgagors’ and Lessees’ Rehabilitation Adjustment Commissions would be provided for the guidance of the Court. Productive value would be the basis of awards, except.where the probability of a genuine sale at a higher figure, wholly for cash, could be proved. Any award for special losses would be set out separately by the Court, so that its finding would* be as plain as A.B.C. to the general public. “There will be no unfair advantage to either side, and I feel' that this method will do much to prevent the booming of land values, which in the long run is harmful, to the nation,” said the Minister. Discussing criticism that had been levelled at the Small Farms Amend, ment Act, Mr. Izangstone said that the principal objection to the Act was not against 1 the right of the State to take land. This right was and always had been paramount, and,’ he thought, had always been reasonably and fairly used. The objection was to the method of assessing compensation, and he willingly accepted the responsibility for attempting to institute a muchneeded reform in the hope of reducing the exorbitant and unjustifiable compensation which had been awarded in most cases of. compulsory acquisition of land. Productive Value. “If it is right to take land to pro- ' vide for settling our soldiers when they return (and no one will deny it), then it is right to see'that the price is reasonable,” said Mr. Langstone. “The Act provides that the price is to be the productive value based on prices and revenue over 10 years, which is the basis upon which mortgages and other charges were adjusted under the Mortgagors and Lessees Rehabilitation Act; but if a land-owner says ‘I could get a higher price in the open market’ and can bring evidence in support of his statement, then he is allowed the market value/ as for a cash sale. This ‘cash sale’ qualification has been criticized, but everyone knows that if a property is for sale and you offer the owner all cash, you can get- a reasonable reduction. Why should not the Crown get the same when it pays cash? “The Government went further than this in providing for special losses. A land owner may put on his property a residence larger than can be economically justified by the production from his farm. If his laud were taken on bare productive basis, he would suffer a loss in respect of the house, but under the Act he can appeal for ‘special loss’ allowance. Much ado is made of the omission of a definition of ‘special loss,’ as distinct from ‘injurious affection’ in the Public Works Act, but the absence of definition seems to me to leave the door open for a wide and liberal interpretation, and many claims other than those of the hypothetical type I have mentioned will no doubt be admitted.”"

Hearing of Appeals. Reference was made by Mr. Langstone to the question of appeal by landowners who had received notice of in- ; tention to take their land. “I have already stated in the House of Representatives,” he said, “that no land will be taken if it will not provide three or more additional farms. This means that the smaller farmers can safely dismiss all thought of their lands being taken. With the larger owners a right of appeal is allowed where part only is being taken and if there is any real • ground for objection in any other ease, I have already given an assurance of careful and sympathetic consideration. This is a democratic country, and any aggrieved citizen has every opportunity of ventilating his complaints. “The Small Farms Amendment Act represents on honest attempt to expand existing principles and to incorporate desirable machinery from other Acts, with the object of ensuring the settlement of returned men without economic loss to the men or to the State. I think that it should at least be given a reasonable trial now that it is on the Statute Book.”