Land for Settlement of Ex-servicemen

Manawatu Times, Volume 70, Issue 281, 28 November 1945, Page 7

Land for Settlement of Ex-servicemen

Wider Compulsory Purchase Powers

Amendments Made To Principal Act

(Per Frcss Association.) WELLINGTON, Nov. 27.

Hon. C. F. Skinner, speaking to the second reading of the Servicemen’s Settlement and Land Sales Bill in the House of Representatives this afternoon said the time would come when it would be impossible to purchase sufficient land by negotiation, and the compulsory clauses of the principal Act would have to be used more extensively than hitherto. The chief reason for the Bill was some of the difficulties which had already been foreseen in that connection and to iron out some of the anomalies which had been experienced in the administration of the Act. Up to the present time only 16 notices had been served for the compulsory purchase of property and in most of those cases the land was owned by an estate. Under the present Act it was possible lor every beneficiary under an estate, even if there were 20 of them, to claim retention of an economic holding. That was obviously absurd and the amending Bill would remedy that. The Bill provided that, where land was to be taken, Land Sales Committees must take note of other land held by the owner. Under the present Act a person might own five or six single farming units, and there was no power to take any of that. Power was now being taken to acquire one. two or more units in such cases, but the owner would he left with at least one economic unit.

Mr. Skinner said provision was being made that the compensation for which the owners might claim as a result of their land being taken would be limited to the actual losses on farming operations which they might suffer.

The Minister said the officers of the Lands Department had shown a commendable desire to avoid friction in regard to the acquisition of properties The owners had also cooperated well. Referring to the provisions that urban land withdrawn from sale and then offered again within 12 months must he sold to a serviceman, Mr. Skinner said that in many cases applications for transfer of a property were made and never completed, and perhaps in a month’s time another application was made for transfer at the basic price. There seemed something wrong in that.

An Opposition voice: What if the serviceman does not want it? Mr. Skinner said that if there was any real reason for the deal not going through, and if the parties to the transaction could show that the purchaser no longer wanted the property, he imagined the deal could go through in the ordinary way.

MAIN ACT GENERALLY WORKING WELL.

Mr. Skinner said the main Act was generally working well. There had been no falling off in the number of property transfers as a result of the Act. Since it became operative until the end of October, there had been 63,309 applications for the transfer of urban properties and 9042 for the transfer of rural properties. Mr. Skinner said 60,092 applications for urban properties had been approved to the end of October and 8546 for rural properties. There had been 12F price reductions, representing £420,647, for rural properties, and 13,323, representing £1,421,932 for urban properties. This meant total reductions from the vendors’ prices of £1,842,579. Not only had the Act served as a stabiliser of values, but it had also definitely saved purchasers of all types of property a considerable amount of money. Thougn there had been some criticism over delays, there was general approval oi the Act among fanners and others, and the Bill made a good measure even better.

Mr. W. Sullivan (Bay of Plenty) said the Bill was in keeping with the main . which was an attack on the pri- . vate property owner. The Government had failed to go ahead with any inten- . sive land settlement policy, with the • result that it had to take land belong- , ing to private owners. There were men i in New Zealand whose hobby had been * the development of lamd, but under the Bill these men were to he dispossessea. A man was no less entitled to own four farms than another was to have shares in four companies, or to own four hotels or four businesses. Some of these mpn had developed unimproved land which the Crown would not touch. Under the Bill the Minister could come along ana take three of a man’s four farms. Tne Crown had shied off land development and was taking privately-owned land because the cost of land development 1 Was greater than the Crown was prepared to pay. The Government was killing the spirit of the men who had developed this type of land. The Crown had not done its job. If the primary producer were to be dispossessed, why not apply the same rule to businessmen, grocers, manufacturers and others? The Government had always been antagonistic to primary producers. The true intent of the Bill, as originally draftea, was to get at the absentee owner, as Government spokesmen had frequently threatened to do, and although that portion of the measure had been modified, the Government’s policy oi ultimate Socialism had been revealed. DEVELOPING THE POPULATION. Hon. W. E. Parry said the Government would take land, while land was available, to settle returned soldiers. The whole tenor of the speech of tne member for the Bay of Plenty seemed to be based on confiscation. It was oovious that Mr. Sullivan objected to the Government taking land from a farmer who had more than he required. The country had to be developed by increasing the population, and to increase the population large areas of land had to be cut up. Was there any particular area of land taken over by the Minister of Rehabilitation not being used more now than it was before it was taken over? Mr. Parry asked. Apparently Mr. Sullivan saw no reason for a farmer owning three or four farms, while a returned soldier had none at an. Mr. W. A. Bodkin said there were millions of acres of land for settlement in New Zealand. At the same time there were insufficient single-unit farms for sale to meet the demand of exBervicemen. Land at present costs could not he taken out of the rough at an economic value. If it was, there must be a loss which the State would have to foot. He said that, if the adl.vice of the member for Bax °f Plenty,

was followed, there would be no difficulty in getting soldiers settled on the land at an economic price. If the Government imagined it was going to settle soldiers on the land without loss, it had another think coming. Subdivision could not be undertaken without loss.

Discussing the functions of the Land Sales Court, Mr. Bodkin said he would like to see the Court empowered to impose substantial penalties for gross abuses of the procedure designed to protect ex-servicemen in negotiations for property.

Mr. Skinner: Tlie Land Sales Court can throw those sales out. Mr. Bodkin: That doesn’t meet the position. Mr. Bodkin referred to two casaa where properties valued at £I2OO and £IBOO were sold for £2OOO each. There was no room for an honest mistake in that, said Mr. Bodkin. Both cases savoured of sharp practice. He urged the Minister to take Statutory authority to deal with the practice and make provision for punishing offenders. DAYS OF LAND BOOMS. Mr. E. L. Cullen (Hawkes Bay) said it seemed that the Opposition deplored the fact that land values had been stabilised, and that they wanted days of land booms. The soldiers had been assisted to a far greater extent by this Government than by previous Governments. He considered the country should stand any loss incurred when settling a soldier on the land. This Bill was not an attack on the farm lands of the country. One million acres were still required for settlement and 6700 more farms were required for soldier settlement. Would the member for Bay of Plenty say that the Government should not take steps to acquire a fjynn from a farmer who owned 3 or 4. Mr. Bodkin: Would you take chain stores?

After the tea adjournment, Mr. W. J. Broadfoot (Waitomo), said the gospel of the Government appeared to be “Walk out and walk in.’ * Rt. Hon. P. Fraser: In contrast to the previous Government’s “Walk out and stop out.”

Mr. Broadfoot went on to say that, if it was wrong policy for a man to have one farm, the Government should extend the principle to trade union secretaries and let it apply all round. The Government had experimented with land settlement, but with disastrous results, and it was no wonder it preferred to buy developed land today and not touch unbroken land. He wanted to know what the average cost was to settle a soldier on the land. He had read recently in the Returned Soldiers’ Review that it had cost £12,000 to settle one man.

Mr. Broadfoot also asked how was it possible for a man to repay his mortgage when taxation remained on a high level. He was of the opinion that the soldier when settled on the land, became nothing but a wage slave of the Government.

Discussing the drift to city areas, he said that, if the farmer was not paid the full value for his produce, the drift from the land would remain. Mr. Fraser said there was an essential difference as between land and other businesses. Land could not be extended, as could other businesses. If there were huge areas of land on which returned soldiers could he settled, were the Opposition prepared to say they should not he stttled on such land? He would like to know the mind of the House regarding land aggregation and the splitting up of land wnere more was held by one owner than was required.

At this stage au amendment to the Bill was introduced. Mr. Skinner explained that it was necessary because of a recent ruling that a small farmxe* was not a farm for the purposes ox the Act. The property concerned was one of 20 acres suitable lor the settlement of a man who would work In a rural occupation. There would he hundreds of returned men wishing to take up such properties and, therefore, the amendment would enable property of this type to he treated as a farm. Mr. W. J. Poison (Stratford) said the Government, by cutting up farms into smaller and smaller holdings, threatened to reduce landholders to the depressed status of European peasantry working long hours to maintain a standard of living which remained far below our own.

MEMBERS UNITED ON ONE THING.

Mr. Skinner, replying, said it wat gratifying to know that members wen all of one mind in their endeavour tc settle ex-servicemen on the land. Some Opposition members had criticised the Government for not using the compulsory clauses of the Act sufficiently, while others had said that the powei should not he used at all. The Oppos ition had spoken with several voices. Mr. Skinner said he had stated or many occasions previously that the Government would not take land undei the compulsory clauses of the Act if ii occasioned hardship. He was sure ex servicemen did not wish to he placed oe land at the expense of other people. The Government was anxious to see ex servicemen settled on the land, and where property could he purchased by negotiation, that was the method adopted. It was only when negotiatioi: failed that the compulsory clauses ol the Act would he used. Mr. Skinner said it was now estimated that there would be 8000 men requir ing settlement on the land and for that purpose between 800,000 and 1,000,00( acres would be needed. He estimated that 6800 men would he settled in the next four years and that 3000 would require single-unit properties. It had been said that the Government had not given ex-servicemen the right to the freehold of a property, but the fact wan that 50 per cent of the men had that right. It had also been said ex-service-men were prepared to go on undeveloped land, but after a conference with a group from Gisborne, it was agreed that that would he a long and painful experience. Despite what Opposition members had declared, there was very little land in New Zealand which could not be developed without fertiliser. Critics had said the Government was not prepared to buy first class land, hut it was a fact that the Government would purchase land up to £6O per acre. It did not matter so much what was paid for the land, hut what the land produced. The cost of development over and above the production value oi the land would he paid for by the State, but in all probability some millions would be written off. He could not se* 5 how the Government’s land settlement policy could be described as ironclad and a hindrance to land settlement. What the Government had laid down as an economic unit would give ex-service* ment the economic security to which they were entitled. The Bill was put through the remain ing stages and passed. The House rose at 11 o’clock unt f 3.30 p.m, tomorrow,