PARLIAMENT'Socialism By Stealtith’ Is Opposition Charge

Greymouth Evening Star, 14 October 1948, Page 3

PARLIAMENT—'Socialism By Stealtith’ Is Opposition Charge

WELLINGTON, October 13.

“This should have been called the disinheritance bill,” said Mr A. S. Sutherland (Opposition, Hauraki) in the House .of Representatives today. He was one of several Opposition speakers who bitterly attacked the Land Valuation Court Bill as “Socialism by stealth.” Others said the bill was the Minister’s two-headed penny and that the bill was a breach of the principle that no man should be a judge in his own cause. Government members were, through a fear complex, seeipg dangers which did not exist. Comments made by Mr H. E. Combs (Government, Onslow) were 'taken by the Opposition as evidence to support their view of the bill. Mr R. M. Algie (Opposition, Remuera) said the system proposed in the bill was weighted heavily in favour of the Crdwn. In the new system the people who were to do the deciding were appointed by the Crown to carry out the policy of the Government. The Crown could not lose. It was the Minister’s double-headed penny. Mi - F. Langstone (Opposition, Roskill): Do you want the Crown to lose? Mr Algie: Certainly not, but what I do want is fair play. Mr Algies said there'was too much Ministerial influence in the machinery to do valuing, and there had already been experience of Ministerial influence in the famous Lewis case. The bill was deluding the public into making people think that a court was being set up, but the Minister could remove most of the members at his pleasure. Mr D. C. Kidd (Opposition, Waimate) said that if he was not mistaken the day was not far distant when the Government would introduce legisaltion making Government valuers the only recognised land valuers, a further step toward the ultimate nationalisation of the land. “Uniformity In The Straight Jacket” ■Mr W. H. Fortune (Opposition, Eden) said that uniformity of land values was very desirable, but there could be uniformity in a concentration camp. The uniformity of the bill could be more of a straight jacket than any army uniform. The bill set up a bureaucratic tribunal, the idea of assessors was wiped out altogether, and the bill denied the people the right to an independent court.

Mr Combs said that those who held land tenures today and thought .they could be passed on to their heirs must readjust their ideas. Mr S. W. Smith (Opposition, Hobson): This is it —a disinheritance bill. Ml- W. H. Gillespie (Opposition, Hurunui): Will stock and station agents be next? Mr Smith: Will you apply it to businesses?

Mr Combs said that in the interests of New Zealand farmers who today held more land than they needed for their own use must be prepared to

have it subdivided. As the population increased subdivisions would have to be smaller than ever before. Mr Sutherland said the reference by Mr Combs to the need for recasting ideas about passing land on to one’s heirs was the first hint ol the disinheritance bill. Mr R. G, Gerard (Opposition, Ashburton): A legalised steal. Mr Sutherland said Mr Combs had spilt the beans. When the Government through this bill had brought land values into line it would be ready for the introduction of a disinheritance bill. An Opposition voice: They preiei to do it this way. _ A Disinheritance Bill Mr Sutherland said that when this bill went through everything would be lined up for socialisation of the land and New Zealand could then look for a disinheritance bill if it were thought necessary. Not justice but Government policy would guide the Land Valuation Court in its work. The bill was a definite move towards the confiscation of privately owned land in New Zealand and towai d placing all land under the heel of a Socialist Government. The bill was a breach of faith by the Government which earlier had said that land sales legislation was only temporary. The bill was another step by the Government to rob the farmer of the freehold of his land. The bill restricted the right of people to go to the Supreme Court and was a resurrection of the Labour Party’s 1919 Lmd policy, said Mr Sutherland. Mr Combs, on a point of order, said he had been misrepresented by Mr Sutherland. “The member for Hauraki said' I had said that those who want to pass on their land to their heirs will have to recast their ideas, and that this foretold the appearance of a disinheritance bill. What I said

was that valuations for gift and death duty purposes should be on the same basis as valuations of land taken for Public Works and other purposed,” said Mr Combs.

Mr F. Langstone (Government, Roskill) said the day was not far distant when land values created by the community would remain with the community, and the time had come when, as legislators, members in the House should give consideratioh to community-created values. Mr J. T. Watts (Opposition, St Albans) said the statement of Mr Combs that those who thought they could leave land to their heirs would have to recast their ideas, had made the Government’s intentions clear. Dr A. M. Finlay (Government, North Shore): You know he denied that. Mr F. W. Doidge (Opposition, Tauranga) : Thos? were his actual words

“A Mock Court”

Mr Watts said the Government's policy of socialisation was now carried out by stealth. The Bill was an example of an instalment of Socialism introduced by subterfuge. The Land Valuation Court would*not be a judicial court but rather a mock court. Dr Finlay said the Leader of the Opposition (Mr S. G. Holland) had twice told the country that the Government intended to nationalise land, and now he seemed to be deceived by his own propaganda. Although nothing in this Bill did anything towards nationalisation of the land, the Leader of the. Opposition still insisted on saying that it did. Mr Holland had predicted that something black was coming, and when what came was white he still said it was black. Dr Finlay said the nearest parallel to the present Bill was set up by the preceding Government in the form of the Court of Review in 1936, under the Mortgagors’ and Lessees’ Rehabilitation Act. The adjustment commissions did nothing but carry out Government policy. Mr W. A. Bodkin (Opposition, Central Otago): There was a right of appeal to the Supreme Court. Dr Finlay said the real purpose of the Bill was not to give the people an advantage over a’ small class of citizens but to protect the people from the brutal hand of inflation.

Collective Farming

Mr Holyoake said that if inflation was at the root of the trouble, as suggested by the member for- North Shore, why did the Government not tackle that problem? The Land Sales Act was brought down in 1943 for the duration of. the war and five years afterward, but would the Government indicate when the war would be officially over? The Bill was a double-edged sword. It could be used to protect private property, but in the hands of those pledged to destroy private property it could be effectively used to that end. Would there be another Bill taking the next step by preventing any land transfers except to the State? Was this Bill the initial step toward collective or State farming? Tn 1945 the Labour Party conference asked the Government to consider favourably the establishment of collective farms.

Mr Parry: There was nothing wrong with that.

Mr Holyoake said that but for the vigour of the Opposition and of some organisations outside the House, land would have been fully nationalised before now. , Mr A. G. Osborne (Government, Onehunga) : Just bunk. Mr M. Moohan (Government ,Petone) said the Government had not dispossessed a single person of his land, home, or business. The House adjourned at 10.30, but an all-night sitting is likely tomorrow if the Government takes urgency on the Bill.