GREY LEASES
PUBLIC MEETING PROTEST
AGAINST ANY VARIATION
“That this meeting of native lease-holders, comprising both residential and commercial interests, calls upon the Right Honourable the Prime Minister (Mr Fraser), to insist upon the Minister of Lands (Hon. C. F. Skinner) honouring his undertaking, given at Greymouth two weeks before the recent election, that if the then pending land sales appeals were withdrawn, no furtfier appeals would be lodged on the question of the value of lessees’ interests in native leaseholds in the Greymouth borough, and that this meeting considers that the Minister’s explanation of his reason for refusing to withdraw the present appeals is unsatisfactory, as the Minister was previously fully satisfied that the local Land Sales Committee was not exceeding the 1942 values; and this meeting emphatically stresses that any variation of the mode of valuation hitherto adopted may involve the wiping out of the equity of many hundreds of workers and commercial people in their homes and businesses; and further requests the Prime Minister to give immediate instructions for the withdrawal of appeals lodged regarding the basis of valuation of lessees’ interests for hearing before the Land Sales Court on Tuesday next at Greymouth”.
The foregoing was a resolution passed last evening at a public meeting at the Greymouth Town Hall under the auspices of the Progress League and Chamber of Commerce, over which the Mayor, Mr. F. A. Kitchingham, presided. Opening the meeting, the Mayor, those leaseholders who were present would be fully aware of the nature of the native reserves of Greymouth, which were excepted from the land bought by the Government from the natives in 1860, and were subsequently leased to miners and people who accompanied them to the Coast in the days of the gold rush. From those times, the leases were deemed to have some value as far as the lessees were concerned. Various sums had been paid on that land, and all with good reason. For decade upon decade officials had all known just what was going on when leases were transferred for varying considerations. All that was desired now was that this system should continue. It was not much fun living on a native reserve when for every £lOOO spent, on improvements, a further £lOOO had to be found by the ratepayers. The natives collected additional rents in perpetuity. The native rents were always computed on a low basis, this giving rise to a goodwill, while rents had meantime gone up. An indication of this could be found in the fact that in 1929 native rents had amounted to £2364; fourteen years later were assessed at £5000; and to-day they were £BOOO. The former practice had been fully sanctioned by the authorities. Now the Crown representative had taken the stand that goodwill had no value at all, or much less than was paid in the past. When the Land Sales Act was passed in 1943, there was a long preamble which set out the object of the Act as being to prevent undue in- i creases in the value of lands for sale. He did not consider that there was any mandate in the Act to interfere with existing'values. He contended that if a lessee’s equity in a section before December, 1942, amounted to £lOO, the lessee was entitled to the same value after that. The Department was aiming to reduce tiie value of the land, in contradiction of the Act. The Land Sales Committee had accepted the view that its function was not to decrease values, but to see that no undue increases were made, and it had acted in this manner up to the present day. The Department,. however, had decided to lodge an appeal against the decision of the Committee, and representations were made in the first instance to Hon. J. O’Brien. It was to be deeply regretted that Mr O’Brien had been taken with his recent illness at this time, and there would probably have been no need for this meeting had he been able to attend to the matter personally. Mr O’Brien had always been exceedingly sympathetic in matters dealing with the leasehold Question, and did all he could to prevent nasty questions arising which necessitated meetings of this nature, or positions which could result in many people being deprived of monies paid for goodwill on leasehold properties.
After - representations to Mr O’Brien, the matte)’ was passed into the hands of Hon. C. F. Skinner, and all seemed to be in order, and no | contentious points would he raised I until the next sitting of the Land I Sales Court. Mr Skinner attended a I conference in Greymouth at the of--4 flees of Mr W. D. Taylor, and the | matter was discussed again, Mr Skin- | ner giving an assurance that if the | then considered appeals were quash- | ed, no further appeals would be I lodged. “The Department is seek- | J ing, not to stabilise the values as at j December, 1942, but to reduce the | values. The question which faces us I at the moment is: ‘ls the Department I to be allowed to do this, or are the neople of Greymouth to stand for their rights’?” concluded Mr Kitchj ingham. Mr W. D. Taylor'' said the matter ’ had originally been brought up' by the j Chamber of Commerce, as a result of appeals lodged in September last. Representations had been made to Mr O’Brien, and the matter had been discussed at Wellington, and, he thought, settled. Notice had then been given that if the anpeals were not withdrawn, a public meeting would be called. Subsequently, Mr [ Skinner had attended a conference of interested persons in Greymouth. The Land Sales Court was approving sales at December, 1942. values,’ and after he had been given a numbei’ of cases which wdre dealt with .by I Court, been satisSdß
VALUATION FOR SALES
that the Court had not gone beyond the 1942 values. He thought the appeals would be withdrawn, and gave an assurance that no further appeals would be lodged. A few days later Mr Skinner agreed to withdraw the appeals. The question for the meeting was that of the value of a lessee’sinterest in his own home. The matter’ seriously affected every leaseholder, and with native rents also on the increase, lessees would have to contest this by asking that the old standard of market values-- be maintained, and that the Minister with-
draw the appeals. Mr N. Anderson spoke along the same lines as Mr Taylor. He was surprised that the Ministei’ had changed his mind after giving an assurance that no further appeals would be brought. He said the conference had not received a writtfjft assurance from the Minister. He considered that this new development, if allowed to stand, would spell ruin for many. It had been expected that the Minister would honour his assurance.
Cr. P. Blanchlield said he thought that with the case in question, a great change was about to come in the town —whether detrimental to its inhabitants oi- not was- a matter for the meeting to decide. On the face of it, there was some, indication that it would cause some people in Greymouth some worry, but he disagreed with the "previous speakers that it meant ruination. It might perhaps entail a little hardship on people who wanted to sell, and to the banks, who would be given over to “some serious head-scratching” in summing up securities on new valuations. He discounted the possibility of buyers being ruined —sellers might be, but they had the alternative of not having to sell. Some, of course, might, for various reasons, and these were the only people who were likely to be affected to any great extent. The average householder would still have his- house and not be affected at all. One great feature of the new system was that much of the speculative trafficking in land would be eliminated. There was,, a feeling abroad that the reduction could be likened to a surgical operation—the first loss could be for- the best. Come what might, either the Maori rents would be too high, or the country would develop an inflationary trend, and like water, the thing would have to find its own level. “What I do suggest, however”, said Cr. Blanchlield, “is that if the appeals are quashed and the valuations’ of the lessees’ interests are reduced, we should not introduce them immediately, but give them some chance of their being understood as they should be”. At this stage of the meeting, the chairman asked for questions from leaseholders in the audience. Mr. A. Shannon asked what was paid for a section bought by the Mines Department some time ago, and whether the Government had set a basic value on the lessee’s interest at that time.
Mr. A. M, Jamieson said the section in question had been valued at £999 and the lessee’s interest at £1.200, which was infinitely higher thar- the Government roll value. Speaking on the question of ruination as discounted upon by Cr. Blanchfield, he could quote several instances where ruination would result. He knew of a business man who had bought his business for £5,000. If he wanted to sell, he would probably ask £6,000. Under the new system, he would receive only £2,000. Of 150 sales of leasehold property which had been approved by the Land Sales Committee, each would lose not less than £lOO and some up to £4,000. Those losses, he said, related to workers. It was inevitable that some would sell, and it would in many cases, mean a cold loss. He did not think it fair that such a change should be made.
Mr. L. F. Henderson: Would the new system have any effect on the rateable value of the town?
The - chairman: Speaking offhandedly, no. Mr. A. Panther asked some defyiition as to how a lessee’s interest — ox’ goodwill—should be assessed. Mr. Truman, in reply, said that the Land Sales had lodged an appeal against the decision of the local committee, which had been trying to maintain the 1942 values. The point arose of how long the court was going to last, for if the present appeal were won, it might involve a considerable loss of money only because of the present appeal—especially if the Court were to disappear in, say, ten years. The difference between the Maori leasehold ,at present and what was considered the unimproved value of the land for sale, was the same as the difference between the land when handed over and the land as it stood to-day. If the Maoris got the full rent as it stood to-day, it had been a waste of time doing what had heen done on the property thus far. “I cannot see that the present state will in any way benefit the Maori. They will certainly not get extra if the Crown opinion is upheld.” Mr. J. B. Kent protested, on behalf of the citizens of Greymouth—that- the Maori was entitled to the same justice as the Pakeha. He saw no reason for all the “boloney.” If those against the Crown’s case thought they had such a good case then there was no need for them to worry.»“Greymouth is not doomed,” .said Mr. Kent, “and J am not ruined. If you consider that there has been a breach of the Land Sales Act, that is as good as a vote of noconfidence in the court. I should also like my disapproval recorded of the publicity on til's subject- in the local newspapers, the authors .of which, I consider, did a disservice to.’ Greymouth.” • t ■. Other speakers were: E. Coates, R. Mitchell, W. GWn, T.Fratt ■■ F. B. Lawn.' •W < fl At ->W \onclusiqn of the meetin J ■ ;T Oved a,■ vbte .<| MB -ho Mayor for ]A?skljJ | '7
and by: The-
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/GRA19470502.2.11
Bibliographic details
Grey River Argus, 2 May 1947, Page 3
Word Count
1,968GREY LEASES Grey River Argus, 2 May 1947, Page 3
Using This Item
Copyright undetermined – untraced rights owner. For advice on reproduction of material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.