LAND DEVELOPMENT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 24698, 29 August 1941, Page 6

LAND DEVELOPMENT

CRITICISM OF COST ADMISSIONS BY MR NASH COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE ACCOUNTS (0.C.) WELLINGTON, Aug. 28. “I do not think anything more misleading has been presented to the country than the way these figures have been twisted to deceive people,” said the Acting Prime . Minister, Mr Nash, when replying to the second reading debate on the National Loans Development Bill in the House of Representatives to-night. The Minister was discussing the earlier criticism by the Opposition, of the cost of land development. He admitted that there had been jnistakes in the return supplied to Mr .W. J. Broadfoot (Opposition. Waitomo). and said he was prepared to have the figures investigated by the Public Accounts Committee. Mr Nash said that the return was sought by Mr Broadfoot in June, 1939, and was given about 13 months later. There had been five occasions since it had been supplied when the matter could have been raised prior to the Minister of Lands leaving New Zealand for the United States, but Mr Broadfoot has chosen to raise it wheh he knew the Minister'was 10,000 miles away and could not defend himself. A Candid Admission

The Acting Prime Minister said he would admit that some of the criticism was justified. There were 74 blocks in the return, however, and 42 of them had been started by the previous Government, with no anticipation that they could be made to pay. Now, because they had not paid, an effort was made to scare the country in the Minister’s absence. Not a word was,said of the profit, made on some of the blocks. The total cost ,of a block of land had been divided by the number of acres in grass to show the cost an acre in some of the returns.

Although the Government had agreed to the figures going to the Public Accounts Committee, the Opposition had made the same charges consistently'pn another night, Mr Nash said. Every word quoted by the member for Central Otago as to the responsibility of .the Government was, correct. The Government'had to be responsible for the actions of its Ministers and tjnie Ministers for the actions of their departments; but in this case the Government had made a complete answer to the points raised by the Opposition.; Mr Bodkin: You won’t even say that the figures in the report are cdrrect? Mr Nash replied that that could be investigated by the committee. • Opposition Amendments < An Opposition amendment to the motion that the Bill be read a second time was defeated on a division by 38 votes to 16. An amendment moved by Mr C. G. E. Harker (Waipawd) and.seconded by Mr J. A. Roy (Clutha), was “ That-this House will agree to read this Bill a second time when the discrepancies disclosed between the particulars furnished in the return to an order of the House dated October 6, 1939, and those set forth in the Parliamentary Paper No. 70 (the report on the settlement of Crown lands for the year ended March 31, 1941); have been investigated and reported -upon to the House by the Public Accounts? Committee.”" #, ■ „ The debate on the amendment lasted only 15 minutes, there being two Opposition speakers. i The Bill was read a second time, and the House went into committee at 11.45 o’clock. The Bill was put through the committee stages in 25 minutes and passed. Investigation Accepted i Mr Nash then moved that the Public Accounts Committee examine the accounts relative to the dsvelopmfnt of land and-the discrepancies between ihe report and the return mentioned in the debate, ■r■, ■. This was agreed to, and the House rose at|o.ll a.m.