LAND SALES

Evening Star, Issue 25895, 12 September 1946, Page 5

LAND SALES

TBIP-UP CLAUSE AGAINST SLACK MARKETING OBNOXIOUS FEATURE REMOVED (Special.) WELLINGTON, Sept. 12. Describing the Bill originally introduced as a drastic measure to try to take care of drastic actions, the Minister of Rehabilitation,'Mr sunnier, said in' the House last evening that the amendments made to the servicemen’s battlement and Land Sales Amendment Bill, by the Statutes Revision Committee had removed most of the objectionable features. No one liked the Bill, hut most agreed, that. something of the,kind was necessary, not for the purpose of .seeking convictions or punishing persons, but to prevent a recurrence of contraventions of the Act. Tne regulations to which the Bill gave statutory effect had been received with mixed feelings. • “ We all shrank from taking the step we actually took, but, nevertheless, I think the action was warranted and justified,” said the Minister. Their object, he added, was : not to get convictions. but to make it very difficult for those who contravened the Act'to get away with it. Similar provisions indemnifying a person against prosecution were to be found in the Evidence Act. 1908. and the Gaming Act, 1908. .Mr C. G. li. Harker (Government, Waipawa) said that the necessity for the Bill to operate at all was because the original Act was being frequently evaded, and sales were going through on what was popularly termed “ the black market.” The. Bill went a long way to making it easier to detect breaches of the principal Act, but as a general principle he preferred always to see the cause removed rather than to punish those who offended.

PROPERTY OWNERS BEAR LOSS. Mr K. J. Holyoake (National. Pahiatua) said that the people of New Zealand were very law abiding, but 6ome of the fundamentals of the original Act offended the sense of justice of a_ great number of people. Why the discrimination against property owners ? asked Mr Holyoake Everybody knew ex-servicemen should be settled in a house, or on a property at 1942 values, but by what process of reasoning could a Government or anybody else require that the loss between the value of a property to-day and the value of the property in 1942 should be borne by any particular property owner? The Act recognised that values had increased since 15)42. and why should not property owners receive the higher value? The cost of rehabilitating exservicemen should not fall upon any particular house or farm, owners. _ Mr Holyoake contended that the difference between the 1942 values and those of to-day should be borne by the people as a whole, and not by a section of property owners.

VALUES DUE JO SHORTAGES. The Minister of Finance, Mr Nash, took the view that Mr Holyoake s suggestion was a; conflict between two Economic theories. The question was whether the owner should receive the increased price of land as between lJ4g ancfcto-day. Such /a principle hadfbeen allowed to operate'in Other countries with disastrous results, and if it were followed in New Zealand there would be disaster within a decade. Present day land values were due to the shortage of commodities, and it was not fair that the land owner should receive an advantage at the expense of the rest of the country, merely because of a shortage of goods. “We have succeeded in keeping prices at a level which will make things less, difficult and disastrous when there is an adjustment of supply and demand,” continued Mr Nash. ‘ The law of supply and demand works, but it brings cruelty and suffering.’ Mr W. A. Bodkin (Nat., Central Otago): This has brought corruption. Mr T. C. Webb (Nat., Kaipara) suggested that the member for Pahiatua, in his criticism, had in mind that some allowance should be made for increased building costs. The Minister of. Finance: AH the costs in connection with building can be added to the price, Mr Webb declared: that nobody wished to lift the lid off stabilisation. Every decent citizen preferred to obey the law, whether he liked it or not; but there had been evasion of the law under discussion, and nobody liked the orginal provision in the Bill. It offended the sense of justice that a man who might have persuaded a vendor to take money in excess of proper consideration could , then coolly go < to court, get whitewashed, and get the excess money back. As the Bill had been amended, the excess money was forfeited to the State. The Minister of Rehabilitation: At least the amount of excess consideration. .

SHOULD STOP ILLEGALITIES. Mr Webb agreed, adding that a magistrate could also impose a fine. He believed the Bill in its present form would go a long way towards stopping illegal transactions. It was not necessary that only the purchaser night inform. Anybody could do so,, including a land sales committee if an illegal transaction came to its notice. He also pointed out that even a vendor, if he made a full disclpsure, might get no penalty, but he would certainly be fined the excess consideration. ' Mr C. Carr (Govt., Timaru)', after quoting advertisements offering houses for rental under certain conditions, said they were an indication of how the housing situation was being exploited. A number of abuses were dealt with in the Bill, and he hoped, other abuses would be dealt with in similarly effective fashion. He said he could not understand the Minister of Finance attempting to apply the principle he had enunciated to the farmer, only, and not to the community at large. Mr Nash interjected that he had applied the principle to all properties, city and otherwise. "The discussion had not concluded when the House adjourned.