SMALL FARM PLAN

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXX, Issue 21414, 11 February 1933, Page 13

SMALL FARM PLAN

OBJECTION TO CLAUSE v" LAND TAKEN BY CROWN OWNER'S RIGHT OF APPEAL REDRAFTING PROMISED . [by telegraph—special reporter] •WELLINGTON, Friday So many objections were made in thft House this afternoon to a clause in the Small Farms (Relief of Unemployment). Bill, giving the €rown_ power to acquire-, compulsorily lands for settlement, that the Minister of Finance, Mr. Coates, was compelled to give an undertaking to have the clause redrafted. The chief complaint;; was that landowners were allowed no adequate appeal against the Crown's decisions and would be liable to unjust treatment, under the terms of the bill. The Hon. A. D. McLeod (Government — Wairarapa) said the House had to remember that it was legislating for the future as well as for" the present. The clause could be enforced most harshly and it should be overhauled to ensure that landowners had the right of appeal from the compulsory acquisition of their land by the Crown. Mr. F. Langstone (Labour —Waima- , rino): They can go to a magistrate. Mr. McLeod said he was not certain , that magistrates could judge on such questions. Further provision should be made. Clause Badly Drafted Mr. F. W. Schramm (Labour —Auckland East) said the clause was badly drawn and very indefinite. He suggested it should be amended so as to fix a time' in which an appeal might be lodged, declare upon whom notices had to be served and provide that where the purchase in- • volved over £2OOO the case should come before the Supreme Court. Mr. W. E. Parry (Labour —Auckland " Central) said it was quite obvious that the Minister had ascertained that many people were holding more land than they < could possibly work With profit. Surely Mr. McLeod did not believe that people should be permitted to hold more land than they could use; There was right of appeal and protection would be provided. Mr. McLcod: Would you be satisfied with a magistrate's decision in all things? Mr. A. E. Jull (Government-y-Wai-pawa) declared that had such a clause been placed before Parliament in days gone by, it would not have received such a tranquil reception. In his opinion, the present land settlement laws did npt go as far as the provisions of the bill before the House. The Minister of Finance, Mr. C° a tes, said he had had communications from all over the country expressing alarm at th* alleged vicious principle embodied in the clause. Personally, he did not .see much danger in it. However, the Government did not want to do anything which would create alarm nor pass legislation that would result in injustices. Nearly all the complaints he had received centred round the appeal to a magistrate. For some reason, there did not seem to be very general confidence in magistrates,, or at least in the judgment some of them. Mr. W. P. Endean (Governmontr—Parnell): You have not had the experience. Appeal to a Judge Mr. Coates said that to get over th* difficulty, he would suggest that an appeal be made to a Judge. While be wished to avoid the greater cost, he realised that where property was being interfered with, there might be a certain amount of force behind the fears expressed. He would be prepared to amend the clause by substituting a Judge for a magistrate. Mr. H. M. Rushworth (Country—Bay of Islands) said that since civil rights ■were affected, every avenue of appeal should be preserved. Mr. W. Nash (Labour—Hutt) pointed out that if appeals had "to be taken to a Judge, the number of people who could appeal would be limited, and in addition proceedings would be protracted. Mr. J. Hargest (Government—Invercargill) asked what would be the position of a mortgagee when t£e Crown exercised its right of acquisition. Mortgagees might be induced to call up mortgages and farm finance would be seriously disturbed. * Mr. A. J. Stallworthy (GovernmentEden) moved an amendment to make it possible for property-owners to appeal from a magistrate's, decision in the usual manner provided under the present law. Mr. M. J. Savage (Labour —Auckland West) declared that whether, the Labour' Party was in power or not, right of appeal to a Supreme Court Judge should be provided. The Leader of the Opposition, Mr. H. E. Holland, said he could not see- why right of appeal should be denied any person who believed he was suffering an injustice. At the Minister's suggestion, the clause was held over and progress was reported on the bill.