THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES Wednesday, August 11, 1943. A BLOT ON A TITLE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 25301, 11 August 1943, Page 2

THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES Wednesday, August 11, 1943. A BLOT ON A TITLE

There could hardly be a more damning denunciation of the Servicemen’s Settlement and Land Sales Bill than that which is contained in the statement issued by the New Zealand Law Society on the subject. The views that are expressed by this society are all the more weighty because of the temperate terms employed by it and derive particular importance from the fact that they are not influenced by any selfish motives. It is, in fact, perfectly clear that it would be to the advantage of the profession if the Bill were passed into law in the form in which the Government has presented it, so serious are the legal difficulties that would be encountered in the effort to apply the provisions of the measure. The Law Society is not directly concerned with the question whether the Bill is or is not speciously designed to give effect to that feature of the Labour Party’s programme that aims at the nationalisation of the land of the Dominion. But it attacks very forcibly those clauses that might be so administered as to advance the party’s policy. It does so on the ground that the enactment of the measure will introduce into all land transactions elements of uncertainty, misgiving, and suspicion that will be destructive of the trust which the owner of a property has in the virtue of his title to it. The validity of the criticism of the Bill that is offered by the Law Society is apparent from a consideration of the proposal that every contract for the sale of any interest in land or for the leasing of land for a term of not less than three’ years must be approved by a committee of Government nominees before it can be fulfilled. This committee is to consist of not more than three persons, and may conceivably consist of one person only. In dealing with any application for the transfer of land, this Government-appointed committee is required to consider the amount of the purchase money or rent that is to be paid, the terms of the transaction, and the suitability of the purchaser or lessee having regard to the purpose for which the land is being used and having regard, also, to the purpose for which, in the opinion of the committee, it should be used. Upon this extraordinary provision,-which carries with it the assumption that the committee is better able than the purchaser or lessee to judge the use that should be made of the land that is the subject of the transaction, the Law Society submits a pertinent comment:

With many people the purchase of a house property is the one investment of a lifetime. In many cases they never sell, nor do they desire to sell, but they always cherish the idea that the property is their own, and that they or their estate can sell if they are so disposed for such a price and to such a buyer as they wisn. The restrictions provided by the Bill will constitute a blot on an owner’s title.

When a person desires to sell, and when a person desires to acquire, a property it is generally hoped in each case that the transaction shall be completed as expeditiously as possible. Any such hope will be doomed to disappointment if this precious Bill is passed in its present form or in anything like. it. About this there can be no doubt when the following figures of the transfer of land in recent years are taken into account:

. 68,841 15,841 84,682 As the Law Society points out, it will be impossible for any committee, charged with the duty of determining the “ basic value ” and the “ productive value ” of land, to deal promptly with the flood of applications with which it will have to deal. The consequence must be that there will be grave delays in the completion of transactions —delays so grave as effectually, it may be imagined, to discourage the marketing of land except under the spur of absolute necessity. Apart altogether from the fact that the Bill is exposed to a sinister interpretation, it seems so full of weaknesses that the likelihood of satisfactorily patching it up in the limited time which the Prime Minister seems disposed to afford to Parliament for its discussion must be regarded as distinctly remote. In the circumstances the Government would be well advised if it decided to withdraw the measure and to utilise the existing law, adequate as it is for the purpose, for the settlement of servicemen on the land.

Town and City: Country. Total. 1940-41 • • 22,723 6,105 28,828 1941-42 . . 23,225 4,982 28,207 1942-43 . . 22,893 4,7^4 27,647