LAND SALES BILL

Manawatu Standard, Volume LXIII, Issue 236, 3 September 1943, Page 6

LAND SALES BILL

"VIEWS OF U.S.A. "WELLINGTON, Sept, 2. Although the returned servicemen asked the Government for the Land Sales Bill, the Act as passed by Parliament was very different .from the original draft, said Mr C. O. Bell, vice-president of the New Zealand Returned Servicemen's Association, when outlining the U.S.A. attitude to this legislation before the annual conference of war amputees at "Wellington. AVlien the Bill had been first shown to the representatives of the 8..5.A. it had been purely a Bill to stabilise the price of land, and there had been nothing in it about the settlement of servicemen. When they next saw it the title had been changed, and the powers of acquisition had been inserted. , : : i . He did not want' members to get any exaggerated ideas about tho harmful effects of the measure, he added, because there was as yet nothing about which the public should become unduly alarmed, though he personally disagreed with many of the provisions. When tho State took farm land ■ for soldier settlement, it could be done only at a productive value established as at December 15. 1942. The R.S.A. had had somo budgets worked out to see how this provision would affect the sale of certain properties, and in each case the vendor had received a shock. Based on 4i per cent, on the productive value as on tho date mentioned, the pi ice had been 6o high that tho vendors would be pleased if tho Government would come along and take their farms from them. CAUSE FOR ALARM.

"I notice that Mr C O. Bell said to the annual conference of war amputees that ho did not want members to get [ any exaggerated ideas about the hartuI ful nature of the Servicemen's Settlement and .Land Sales Act, becauso I there was as yet nothing- about which the public should become unduly alarmed," said Mr A. I'. O'Shea, .Dominion secretary of the Now Zealand Farmcra' Union, in a statement to-day. "I would like to make it clear that , tho Farmers' Union is very alarmed about some of tho powers in tho Act," said Mr O'Shea.. 1 would like Mr Bell to answer tho following questions: "(1) Does ho believe that a committee (and a committee can bo one man) should have the power to say how tilepurchaser of a house shall use it ? "(2) Does ho think it right that com-' mittccmen can be removed at tho whim of tho Government? "(3) Does he agree that any committoo should have the power to disapprove , of any person who buys a property.? "(4) Does he not think that the amount of. land which must be left to a farmer should be laid clown definitely as is done, in the Lands for Settlements Act? "(b) Will Mr Bell say that there is . nothing for tho public to be alarmed ■ » ibout in tho provisions referred to above ? | "(6) .Will he indicate whether, in his opinion, tho provisions referred to above nre in line with British legislative and judicial principles 1 | "(7) Will he indicate whether or not ho is of the opinion that other businesses, particularly hotels, should bo taken compulsorily from the 'vested in- i terosts' referred lo by the Prime Minister, in the same way as it is proposed to take land so (hat returned soldiers ■ who are experienced barmen or slew- I nrds can be rehabilitated into thoso lines of economic activity in which they were engaged before (he war?" I