Land Valuation Court Bill Criticised By Federated Farmers

Grey River Argus, 28 October 1948, Page 7

Land Valuation Court Bill Criticised By Federated Farmers

P.A. WELLINGTON, October 27. Mr. W. N. Perry, Dominion President of the Federated Farmers, in a statement yesterday, said: “I would like to say that the explanations of the Minister of Lands, Hon. C. F. Skinner, about the Land Valuation Court Bill will not allay misgivings of farmers about the Bill. ■ First of all I wish to say that the Federated Farmers is of the opinion that the President of the Court should be a member of the Supreme Court bench. Secondly, it should be pointed out that the Government has taken power to appoint the other two members. The Bill, as constituted, does give the Government power to establish a biased court, which could be used to deny justice to property owners. I wonder what would happen if a non-Labour Government took power to appoint both assessors in the Arbitration Court ? A further point is that, if the members disagree with the Judge, there is no decision, and the Land Sales Committee’s decision stands. That is why the Federated Farmers’ wishes to have similar provisions in the Bill to those which obtain at present for a rehearing by another tribunal in such a case. “I must also disagree with the Minister’s statement that ‘everyone is agreed on paying tribute to the suitability’ of the Judge and members of the Land Sales Court. I have no desire to pillory any particular person, and, consequently, I will say that the Minister should know that representations on this matter were made to a Committee of the House on 1 Tuesday. Tiie Federated Farmers say that either the Court, must be'improved, or else a right of 'appeal should be provided. I understand that this view is also supported by the New Zealand Law Society, which, moreover, agrees that, under the present land sales legislation, there is a good deal of injustice. There is also a good deal of confusion about the actual effect of the proposed measure, and the best legal opinion says that it does not provide for uniformity in values, as suggested by the Minister, since the Court has to operate three distinct and different Acts.

“I would urge that the Bill be deferred, so that it can be properly examined and discussed by all interested parties in consultation with the Government, so that sound and effective legislation can be brought down,” concluded Mr. Perry.