PAHIATUA LEASES

Evening Post, Volume CVIII, Issue 79, 30 September 1924, Page 4

PAHIATUA LEASES

HOUSE APPROVES SALE AFTER LONG DEBATE LABOUR PARTY'S HOSTILITY, The Wellington City-Mangahao Endowment Sale Empowering Bill, which proposes to authorise the City Council to dispose of the Pahiatua leaseholds to the occupiers, was " stonewalled " by the members of the Labour Party when the Bill was in Committee oi the House of Representatives last night. Their objection was that the council had no right to dispose of its endowments, at any rate not until the municipal electors had expressed their views on the matter. Mr. R. A. Wright (Wellington Suburbs) was in charge of the Bill.

Speaking on the short title. Mr. A. L. Monteith (Wellington East) said he was certain the- majority of the people of Wellington opposed the Bill, on two grounds—that the endowments "concerned had belonged to the city since 1885; and that tho price is " simply ridiculous." It was a case of gambling with the leasehold. If the tenants could not pay rental of 4 per cent, on the Government valuation, he failed to see how they were going to pay the figure set out in the Bill for the purchase of the freehold. Mr. Monteith referred to the Government finding the money to enable the tenants to purchase the freehold.

The Prime Minister: "No one said they would get- it from the Government." " I understood they were practically guaranteed it,'' said Mr. Monteith. Mr. Massey: "My own opinion is that special arrangements will have to be made." ■ j Mr. Monteith: "They will-be made all right." Mr. Massey: " Oh, I believe so." Mr. Monteith: "I can quite believa it." Ho went on to refer to the small purchasing price stated in the Bill. It was not desirable in the city interests that the endowment lands should be sold. Tho capital value of the land was £22,500, or about £14 5s per aero It was no wonder that the Government, on that value, was prepared, after negotiation, to find the money. iThe tenants had gambled in tho land,1 and tho council could not be blamed for that. The low rent had been responsible for the gambling that had gone on. SOME FIXED TENURE WANTED /Mr. E. A. Ransom (Pahiatua) supported the Bill, and replied to the statement that the price was too low. He pointed out that the improvements did not belong to the Corporation, and that the Corporation was selling on the unimproved value. He know of at least one tenant who-would sell out if he could get the value of the improvements, and who would be prepared to forego Ins interest in the original unimproved value. Iho tenants felt that they must have some fixed tenure to enable thorn to bring their land into a high state of cultivation.

Mr. It. M'Keen (Wellington South) opposed the measure. If the Bill passed, he said, it would establish a precedent to other local bodies to dispose of their endowment lands. Not one of the present tenants was an occupier originally. If the freehold was given, the tenants would dispose of their land. The City L.oun Cl i j lac , got tho e(u . of tUe pr . me Minister, who was practically agreeable o handing over lands which belonged with °lty to U' e tennnts t0 speculate ' m'h Pi, Fraser (VVo!Ii »b't"» Central) ..lid tiio llouse would bo impressed with the Fact that the majority of the Weiimgton members were opposed to the disposing of tho ondowment block at such a qdiculously low price. Tho Leaseholds Committee of the City Council hud wn it" Ul° VillUo of tlle lnnd at £25 >- 500. How was it, then, that it was proposed to soil at £3000 less? Ho would if \r° k;"/". v,what was tho real opinion of Mr. Wright, as Mayor of the city, upon. Uiat, for as a rule ] le was very loml of impressing upon the council the need ior .saving the last farthing.. Mr. I'raser said h 0 failed to see how the present valuation of £22,500 had been arrived at. The tenants wore entitled to Hie value of every farthing of tho improvements that they had effected. But only one or two of tho original tenants ere st. 1 there. If tho tenants really anted to curry on dairy fanning, tfieii »ie present arrangement was the moat advantageous to them. They must pay a higher rato <,f interest than 4 per cent. to raise, money to buy Umh- holdings, "id it would bo a better proposition for them to continue to pay the present rent

BEGINNING OF THE END. wk (he Bill would mean the beginning of llio end ,f lt was ullowc j « souk „ot. vivo security of tenure withHis. niani objection to i],o Bill was tho 13 Pr"lCipl ° °f Bellhl« o'«W.,? s™-I" , Kdio i (C1!ltli:i) endorseJ Mr.mVe rs r U' knth^ ."tllis busi"^ end"Th . ' bcS"»»»«K of tho ™r po S ii;rv oudowi"cnu Bliould b°^ Mr. H. X Holland (Buller) said it »■„ of U,o B«lT t!" 11 "*.'»en'b«* "• tt -fTr *«>« £ & ? A member- "You nn i ;i „ „ ond reading " gOt lt °n lhe sec" Mr. Holla,.'! :"I don't think any case was nn.de on I 011 the second reading » lhe Minister of Education (the lion v. J. larr); Aro the majority of the Council in favour of the Bill?" Mr. Holland: "The honourable member in charge of the Bill might even tell us that." Mr. Holland said he opposed the principle contained in the measure v n -a i ,Armstroll g (Christchurch East) said he. know the reason why Mr Wright remained silent about his Bill— because be had failed on the second fwoiTr BofV niSe S"fficient argument in Mr. Frasor asked whctlier Mr' Wrieli' wnK in r.-m.,,,. „r an.l a , )a ,t y 10 , ... K will. Uu. 1,.i,.1 a at. U,o price „a m ...l in Mil! J.ill mid (Iclraiidins tho cifi/en< r,f £300(i or whether be favouml Ij.i v"h«! tlU''U ' iy U'U Lenscllultla CornMr. J'iiiiisoiii said that to allow the statement to go forth that the city was being defrauded of £3000 might lead to lhe inference that there had been collusion between the pity Council and tho people of llio district. Tbo settlers did not rush the proposition when it 'was uiadr, as uno honourable gentleman had stalcrl, and dediiied Uib original uricr offered by l.he cjun.il. and tho preseiH pn>.v. v,i3 arrived at by negotiation. Mr, Fraßer EUgfeatcil that the pale of

the land should be made the subject of a poll of the ratepayers. A BAD STEP-FATHER Speaking at 10.30 p.m., Mr. W. E. Parry (Auckland Central) again complained that Mr. Wright would not answer, the arguments put up by the Labour members, but "sits there like a stump." (Laughter.) Mr. Wright's attitude was commented on by Mr. F. N. Bartram (Grey Lynn) as "looking so placid and saint-like, so different from the attitude he usually takes up in this House." A voice: "Angelic smile." (Laughter.) Mr. Holland failed to understand why Mr. Wright had for so long maintained a "loud silence." Apparently he did not agree with certain features of the Bill of which he had charge. The electors of Wellington, he suggested, should be permitted to express their views on the Bill. There was no evidence whatever that the people of Wellington were in favour of what was proposed. Mr. Wright was acting not as a City Father, but more like a "bad step-father." (Laughter.) The Chairman of Committees (Mr. G. A. Young), at 10.45 p.m., stated that the Committee had been discussing the short title of the Bill for three hours, so future references to the Bill being submitted to the electors and to the silence of the member in charge of the Bill would be ruled out of order, as i those points had been well thrashed out. | Mr. Holland: "1 wish you would rule the continued silence of the honourable member in charge of the Bill out of order:" (Laughter.) There was a. division on the short title at 11 o'clock. The short title was retained by 29 votes to 12. Mi-. T. K. Sidey (Dunedin South) voted with the Labour Party. . ■ ' On clause 3, Mr. Monteith moved an amendment that the purchase price be £25,000 instead of £22,500. Mr. Wright said he was satisfied that the sale of the endowments was in the interests of the city. He had changed his mind on the question after he had seen the laud and had learned that some of the occupiers had paid £50 an acre for the goodwill. The purchase money could be better invested in city property than some members' thought. It had been said that once the freehold was granted the new owners would dispose of the land, but he wanted to know to whom they would sell it. The price of £22,500 had been reached as a compromise after considerable haggling. Mr. Monteith said the majority of the members of the Leaseholds Committee of the City Council were against the proposed price, which the fanners had rushed.

Mr. Fraser said the House, by voting for tho short title, had approved of .the Bill. Tho Labour Party was still op-, posed to tho principle of tho sale of the endowment. It now wanted to save something from the wreck and get the best price possiblo for tho city, hence tho amendment. Tho amendment was defeated by 28. votes to 12. OTHER AMENDMENTS Mr. M'Kecn objected to the council being given absolute discretion in the matter of investing tho proceeds from tho sale of the land. Ho moved an amendment designed to deprive the council of this power, and providing that the purchase money be used for the acquisition of endowment lauds for municipal purposes before 30th. September, 1926. Mr. Wright said the purpose of the clause as drafted was to enable the council to await a favourable opportunity to invest the money. If it rushed the matter it might make a bad deal. The amendment was defeated by 28 votes to 12. Mr. Frascr moved an amendment to add a new clause, that the provisions of the Bill should not come into operation unless and until they had been approved by a majority vote of the electors of the' city of, Wellington. The amendment was defeated by 28 votes to 12. Tho Bill was reported without amendments, tho third reading was agreed to by 29 votes to 12, and tho measure was passed.