Labour Member s Objection To Freehold for Crown Tenants

Northern Advocate, 30 November 1948, Page 7

Labour Member s Objection To Freehold for Crown Tenants

WELLINGTON, Tue. (P.A.)—A protest against the Government’s action in giving Crown tenants the right to acquire the freehold of the land was expressed by • f Roskill) when the Land Bill was being put through the committee stages oi the House or itepic Sentati He S saldthtdause was a retrograde step and that tenants of state houses who sought the freehold be chaUe^ged. v o .ce the principle 0 f selling Crown lands,” said Mr which we have had a Parliament in this country there has never been such legislation passed giving carte blanche to the tenants to acquire fee simple of Cio n a .

Mr Langstone said he could imagine the opposition, there would be if the principle were applied to private land. The Crown tenants had been the only people to benefit when the commissions on deteriorated lands and discharged soldier settlement had been set up in 1923. , Why was there this hostility against the state being the landlord when it had been, and always would be, the best landlord of the lot? “I am very sorry to see that in this bill all Crown tenants, except in the case of commercial land and pastor ul licences, are to pe given the right to buy the land,” Mr Langstone continued. , “I am certain the Tories under the late Mr Massey, Mr Atkinson or Mr Stout would not have brought down a measure like this.” He remembered when public opinion was in favour of leasehold land. If the tenants all wanted to exercise the right that was to be given under 'the bill it meant that Crown land in the main was gone. He could not see how a soldier demanding the freehold of his state house could be challenged now. The same principle was involved. Mr A. C. Baxter (G.-Raglan): No. Mr Langstone: It is a very retrograde step. / POLICY OF LABOUR Mr J-. N. Massey (0.-Franklin) said he was sorry the bill did not give the occupiers of state houses the light to acquire the freehold. “I do not agree with' the member for Roskill when he says all land should belong to the state,” Mr Massey continued. “That is written into the policy or the Labour Party.” Mr Massey said the National Party believed it was in the interests of the individual and the state to encouiage people to retain property. ■ He was sorry that the Minister of Lands (Mr Skinner) had not. seen tit to introduce a measure under which the occupiers of state houses would have that right but the Minister had made ft step forward. Was the mem-

ber for Roskill going to walk into the Opposition lobby on the bill Mr Skinner said there were only 7000 Crown leases in existence which did not carry the right of freehold.

“We believe the occupant of land has a responsibility to utilise the land in the interests of himself and the nation and should be equitably rewarded for the services he renders,” Mr Baxter added. “He has a right to all the improvements he puts on the land. The return. to the community of the com-munity-created assets is something that must be faced up to by Governments in the future.” Mr Baxter said he did not think many Crown tenants would exercise their right under the clause. Mr Langstone: Why give it? Mr Baxter said Parliamentarians, like the late Mr G. W. Forbes, had no' acquired the freehold of their properties because as experienced farmers they knew it was of no material advantage. If the State set the example lane held under private lease should fall into line. ABSENTEE OWNERS The Government did not believe in absentee owners apart from a few exceptions. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Holland): What do you mean by that? Mr Baxter: A person who lives away from the property on which he earns his living and has the right and title to occupancy.

The bill did not give all lessees that right, certain types of commercial land and pastoral licences being exempt. It was inconsistent for many freeholds to be made available to Crown tenants while the man next door did not have that right. It had been proved conclusively that more people had been able to freehold their farms and homes undei the present Government than under any other Government.

Mr Langstone: The Minister means that they are paying off their mortgages. That is altogether different.

EVIDENCE OF DIFFERENCE Mr IC. J. Holyoake (O—Pahiatua) said Mr Langstone’s speech had been the most intriguing incident that had happened in the House for some time. More people were acquiring the freehold of their properties not under the nresent Government's legislation but under the legislation of past Governments. The prosperity of the times had enabled tenants to take advantage oi these enactments. The member for Roskill and other Socialists had capitalised on the hatred of tenant for landlord. Now they found it was no different with the State, as landlord. It was interesting to see some evidence of difference in the Government ranks. Mr Holyoake said he wanted to compliment the member for Roskill for standing up for his principles through thick and thin.

Mr Baxter said that if the private lessor did not bring his policy into line it was up to the Government to bring down legislation.

Opposition Voices: Oh. Mr Langstone said that in 1894 the State had to buy land for closer settlement.

The people would look forward to the Labour Party conference next year, when the party’s policy was laid down.

He could not see the sense of buying land and having to sell it again He had to raise his voice, because hr felt a vital principle was at stake. A lot of wise people would not take advantage of the clause because it wa: not in their interests.

Had the provision been inserted in bill because the Government realised bow close to defeat it had been at the last election?

It was also not in the interests of the State.

Was the principle to toe a continuing policy, or was it just to help the Government over the next campaign? “We look forward to seeing the member for Roskill stand valiantly by his principles at that conference,” added Mr Holyoake. Mr Langstone: He does it without your help. CHANGE IN FUTURE? Mr Holyoake: Will wc in future see the fundamental policy of the Labour Party changed to just the socialisation of the means of distribution and exchange, instead of production, distribution and exchange? Mr Baxter said there was liable to be a good deal of confused thinking over the principle in the bill. There was always a difference of opinion in the Labour movement because its members were progressive thinking people. He would like to see a true expression of opinion from Mr Holyoake and hi s shell-backed Tories and progressive Liberals. Over the years the right to the freehold had been extended by successive Governments until the Government s control of land had vanished to the extent that it was no further use to a progressive Government.

The acting Chairman of Committees (Mr R. M. Macfarlane) then put the clause, and it was agreed to withoui a dissentient voice.

The bill was passed shortly after ward.