Opposition Attack On Land Valuation Bill

Greymouth Evening Star, 15 October 1948, Page 3

Opposition Attack On Land Valuation Bill

WELLINGTON, October 14.

The Opposition continued its attack on the Land Valuation Court Bill, for which urgency was taken in the House of Representatives today. Mr W., A. Sheat (Opposition, Patea) moved an amendment that the Bill be referred back to the Government with a view to amending it so that in cases where the Crown was directly involved the tribunal that fixed the value of the land should include as one of its members an assessor appointed by the owner of the land.

The amendment was defeated on a division by 35 votes to 34, and the Bill was read a second time by 35 votes to 32. It was then referred to the Statutes Revision Committee. The debate had appeared likely to last well into the night, but the House was able to rise at 11.25 p.m. When the voting on Mr Sheat’s amendment was announced the Act-ing-Prime Minister (Mi' Nash) com--plained that there was “something wrong with the voting” and after a long discussion it was found that there had been a misunderstanding about the granting of a pair to the Attorney-General. (Mr H. G. R. Mason). Mr Combs’s Statement He realised how difficult it was to fix the true value of the land, said Mr E. B. Gordon (Opposition, Rangitikei), continuing the second reading debate, but there was only one way and that was to find out. what price a purchaser was willing to pay. The Bill sought to fix a Government value for all land. That would not be a true but a pegged value. As the Government member for Onslow (Mr H. E. Combs) had said those who had present-day tenures and thought that they could pass them on to their heirs had to readjust their ideas. A Government member: You know he did not say that. An Opposition member: He did. Mr Combs, on a point of order, said he had been misrepresented by the member for Rangitikei. What he had said was: “If and when our population reaches 3,000,000 the subdivision of our land to provide access lor additional farmers will be of the greatest importance, and those who have a present-day tenure and think that they can pass it on to their heirs must readjust their ideas on that particuDuring an exchange of interjections, Mr Speaker (Mr R. McKeen) called the House to order and ruled that no further reference to the statement by the member for Onslow could be made. Mr Ormond Wilson (Government, Palmerston North) said the valuation of land was not yet a perfected system, but this Bill would enable all available skill and experience m land valuation to be concentrated in one chann6Mr W. H. Gillespie (Opposition, Hurunui) said the Bill affected those who owned small homes as well as those with broad acres but it did exempt Maori and Crown lands. Originally when the land sales committees had been appointed Parliament had been told that the committees were judicial bodies and beyond Government interference. Since then they had had cause to doubt that. He believed the Government’s long-term aim was to decrease land values, thereby paying in part for the Government’s huge socialistic experiment.. , Mr Nash Defends Bill Mr Nash said the Court, as proposed in the Bill, could not be interfered or tampered with, but even before the judge had been appointed the Opposition had made an attack on him. He had no doubt about the judicial integrity of New Zealand Courts. The Bill was one of the best things that had yet been done, and did not affect the title to land in the slightest degree. Mr Sheat said that when it suited the Minister of Finance, to claim that such tribunals were not ’ judicial bodies he would claim that they were administrative bodies. That was what the Minister did in the debate on the Lewis case. The Opposition did not want high values but fair values. He thought there was an unanswerable case for a compensating adjustment in the value of land just as with labour and other commodities. There had been a fundamental change in land values between 1942 and today. What was a fair value in 1942 was no longer a fair value.

“Reasonable Safeguard”

Mr Sheat said that if the amendment were made there would be some reasonable safeguard against the Land Valuation Court or land valuation commit-, tees being subject to Ministerial influence or direction. The Minister of Lands (Mr C. F. Skinner), speaking to the amendment, said that there was an increase of more than 1,000,000 acres of freehold land today compared with 1935, and in the same period an increase of more than 53,000 private home owners. Was that an indication that the Government.intended to socialise the land and property? It was the complete answer to such an assertion by the Opposition.

Transfer Of Statutory Holidays To Monday

(P.A.) WELLINGTON, Oct. 14. The transfer of the holiday in the terms of awards to the following Monday when Christmas Day and New Year’s Day fail on a Saturday is provided for in the Public Holidays Amendment Bill, introduced in the House of Representatives to-day. In these circumstances, the Boxing Day holiday and that on January 2 would be observed on the following Tuesday. The bill also provides that Anniversary Day award holidays that fall on Saturday oy Sunday shall be transferred to the following Monday- _ The transfer of the Anzac Day holiday is prohibited except in the case of a worker required to work on that day. Under the present law, Christmas Day and New Year’s Day are transferred to the following Mondays in the event of their falling bn Sundays.