Land Sales Bill Forces Up Prices

Manawatu Times, Volume 68, Issue 209, 3 September 1943, Page 4

Land Sales Bill Forces Up Prices

R.SA Attitude Outlined Although the returned servieexue* asked the Government for the Land .Sales Bill, the Act as passed by Paring* ment was very different from the original draft, said Mr. {J. O. Bell, vicepresident of the New Zealand Returned Servicemen’s Association, when outlining the R.S.A. attitude to thia legislation before the annual conference o£ war amputees at Wellington. Following the R.S.A. conference in May, Mr. Bell said, the Government was urged to introduce legislation enabling a serviceman to secure a house at an economic value and a farm at a productive value, with a freehold tenure* "Something had to be done," he said, "We could not allow the position to go on as it did last time. There is no doubt that after the last war the people did take tbe soldiers down, not deliberately perhaps, but the circumstance! were there and the people took advantage of them in selling land to tho soldiers. ’ ’ When the Land Sales Bill had been first shown to the representatives of tho R.S.A., it had been purely a Bill to stabilise the price of land, and thero 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. He did not want members to get any exaggerated ideas about the 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. Under the Act as finally passed tba Government could not take any land unless it was for soldier settlement. It could not take a house, nor town land. And when tbe 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 some budgets worked out to see how this provision would affect the sale of certain properties, and in each case tha vendor had received a shock. Based on 41 per cent, on the productive value as on the date mentioned, the price had been so high that tha vendors would be pleased if the Government would come along and take thel* farms from them. In reply to a question, Mr. Bell said the R.S.A. believed that the returned serviceman of to-day should have tha same right as was given to the soldier after tho last war of acquiring the freehold of Ms farm, the same right as was possessed by many classes of Crown tenants to-day. Certainly less than 10 per cent, of the soldiers from the last war had exercised that right of purchase, but the right should remain. Under this legislation the soldier did not have the right of purchasing the freehold. When the Government purchased land for soldier settlement, the price did not necessarily have any relation to the figure at which the soldier acquired it, because the soldier would be settled at a productive value, based on a figure at which he could make good. The only way in which a serviceman could buy a freehold farm to-day was through the rehabilitation scheme of tbe State Adj vances. but here again the dual probj lem of property shortage and uneeo* I nomic price were inhibiting factors. CAUSES FOR ALARM SAYS FARMERS’ UNION "I notice that Mr. C. O. Bell said ta the annual conference of war amputee* that he did not want members to get any exaggerated ideas about the harmful nature of the Servicemen’s Settlement and Land Sales Act, because there Mas as yet nothing about which the public, should become unduly alarmed," said Mr. A. P. O’Shea. Dominion secretary of the New Zealand Farmers' Union, in a statement to-day. "I would like to make it clear that the Farmers’ Union is very alarmed about some of the powers in the Act," said Mr. o\Shea. "It is alarmed that legislation like this should be without any real legal principle* and give powers to certain people who are to be completely under the control of the Government. The union was so alarmed at the nature of these powers thst it put forward proposals which were admitted by the Prime Minister to be drastic. It cannot, therefore, be suggested that tke Farmers’ Union is not fully in accord with the objects w’bich. everyone professes a desire to achieve, viz., control of speculation, and settlement of servicemen. The union’s proposals would have achieved these objects, but their main defect is, from tha Government’s point of view, that they would not give complete control of land and houses, which is achieved by tha Act. "I would like Mr. Bell to answer tha following questions:— "(I) Does he believe that a committee (and a committee can be one man) should have the power to say how tha purchaser of a house shall use it ? "(2) Does he think it right that committeemen can be removed at the whim of the Governmentf "(3) Does he agree that any committee should have the power to disapprove of any person who buys a property! "(4) Does he not think that tha amount of land which must be left to a farmer should be laid down definitely as is done in the Lands for Settlements Act! "(5) Will Mr. Bell say that there is nothing for the public to be alarmed about in the provisions referred to above! " (6) Will he indicate whether, in his opinion, the provisions referred to above are ift line with British legislative and judicial principles! "(7) Will he indicate whether or not he is of the opinion that other businesses, particularly hotels, should bo taken compulsorily from the ‘vested interests’ referred to by the Prime Minister, in the same way as it is proposed to take land so that retnrned soldiers who are experienced barmen or stewards ean be rehabilitated into thoee lines of economic activity in uhich they were engaged before the war!"