LAND SALES ACT

Dominion, Volume 36, Issue 308, 23 September 1943, Page 6

LAND SALES ACT

Mr. Nash’s Statement Held

To Be Incorrect

FARMERS’ UNION REPLIES

'l‘lie New Zealand Farmers’ Union takes exception to a statement reported to have been made at Petone on Tuesday night by tlie Minister of Finance, Mr. Nash, Labour candidate for Hutt, that there was only one compulsory provision in the Land Sales Act, and that was that, after an area sufficient to maintain an owner and bis family had been set aside, any surplus could be taken for tlie settlement of returned servicemen. “That is not correct,” says the Farmers’ Union in a statement issued yesterday. "There is no provision, tn the Act to provide for the retention of an area sufficient to maintain an owner and his familv.’ There is no reference to a family whatsoever. The actual wording in the Land Sales Act is that: ‘the owner shall have the right to retain any part of the land constituting an economis holding. . . .’’ it should be noted that ‘economic holding’’ is not defined in the Act. , t . “Also, there are at least two other ‘compulsory’ provisions. Section 51 gives the Government power to take any land which is the subject of an agreement, for sale (with certain exceptions). This power could apply to a family transaction. “Section 50 (2) gives the Government po.wer to impose conditions on tlie transfer of any property. This means that the Government can compel a buyer to use a house or a farm in such a way or for such purposes as the Government requires. “One of the things for which the Farmers’ Union has been fighting is the laying down in clear and definite language the powers of the Government. One of the grave objections to the Land Sales Act is that it' is a conglomeration of vague phrases which can be, and have been, the subject of any interpretation which Parliamentary candidates themselves desired to read into the Act. The statement made by the. Minister of Finance at Petone proves this."