LAND SALES BILL

Otago Daily Times, Issue 25303, 13 August 1943, Page 4

LAND SALES BILL

DEFENDED BY MR FRASER FULFILMENT OF PLEDGES (F.0.P.R.) WELLINGTON, Aug. 12. The principles in the measure were the embodiment of the Government’s and the country’s desire to carry out the pledges given by everyone to the soldiers when they went overseas, declared the Prime Minister, Mr P. Fraser, during the debate on the Servicemen’s Settlement and Land Sales Bill in the House of Representatives to-night. The Bill was an endeavour to implement the sentiments that had been uttered in past years all over the country, and this was the opportunity for the Opposition and everyone to prove the worth of their promises. The Prime Minister said it was irrelevant and the figment of an anaemic imagination to say that the Bill aimed at the nationalisation of the land. The criticism expressed by ratepayers’ associations. chambers of commerce, and real estate agents came from one and the same people, and they were not defending the soldiers’ case, but were trying to make it possible for vested interests to batten on the soldiers. (Opposition cries of “No, no.”) The Prime Minister said the provisions of the Bill were exactly the same as those in the Small Farms Amendment Act, 1940, relating to the safeguarding of land owned by serving soldiers. He declared there was no ulterior motive in the Bill. The only motive was the fulfilment of the solemn pledges given by the late Prime Minister, Mr Savage, and himself, and echoed by everybody -in the country. “This Bill is the first step towards the fulfilment of those pledges,” ho added. Mr F W. Doidge (Oppn., Tauranga): You have not fulfilled them t 6 the men who have already come badk. The Prime Minister said he did not intend to deal with pigmy interruptions in the discussion of such a serious matter. He would welcome helpful criticism and was asking for it. Conscription of Life

“ We want the goodwill of all tile people to provide the best legislation for the most successful settlement of the returned men on the land and in industry,” Mr. Fraser said. ’’ The country will stretch out its hands to welcome the men, but no one will be allowed to put their hands in the soldiers’ pockets. It will be a tragedy, and a disgrace to the country, if the men who went through the campaigns of Greece, Libya and North Africa come back to find themselves economically defeated.” , , , , „ Mr Fraser said there had been leading articles lauding the Government’s decision to conscript human life to fight for the country and democracy, and rightly so. They had applauded the taking of men away from their homes to be sent into industry and the placing of barriers on the rights of employers and employees to discuss wages and conditions, but it was a different story to-day when this Bill was brought forward. The newspapers and Opposition members deplored anything being done when it was a case of controlling the land for the benefit of th<: people and the soldiers. They raised their hands and,, in effect, said: Who dares to put a hand on this goddess? Everybody agreed with the principles of the Bill, said Mr Fraser, and no one would say there was not a danger of the aggregation of land and houses, with values soaring to ruinous heights. Everyone would agree that there should be no exploitation. “ Have any of the critics come forward and suggested any alternative to this measure? ” he asked Mr W. J. Poison (Oppn., Stratford) interjected that the Opposition had suggestions to offer in the committee stages. The Prime Minister: I will be glad to have them. That is the spirit we want to M r n Fraser added that in fixing the computation of the productive value of land on a capitalisation of 4J per cent, the Government had been more generous than in any. previous legislation. Promise of Justice The Prime Minister said that the duration of the measure had been fixed at five years after the war because it was felt that that was a fair period for the settlement of all soldiers if rehabilitation were a success. The land sales committees would not be the creatures of the Government, and the three members of the land sales court would be selected because of their judicial capacity and their knowledge of land operations. “ Some critics say that we are going to rob the farmers and others that we are going to give them too much, Mr Fraser continued. “We say that we believe that competent • land sales committees and the land sales court will see that justice is d °The case of a house and land which had been sold for £1450, resold for £1650, and then sold again for £2150, was quoted bv Mr Fraser. He said that the returned soldier who had bought that property would have to carry an intolerable burden of debt when conditions returned to normal and private building and the State housing scheme were resumed. Referring to claims that the Government was denying the privilege of the freehold to the soldier, the Prime Minister said that soldiers of the last war had apparently shown no enthusiasm for the freehold, and out of 3986 Government land leases only 382 had exercised the right to acquire the freehold. The Government, said Mr Fraser, was anxious that men returning from the war should be settled on the land without a burden of debt and with a chance to make good. It would be made abundantly clear that houses would not be taken for any purpose. The question of the acquisition of Native land for Maori soldiers must be considered. He understood, however, that the Native Land Department thought that so much land would be offered voluntarily by Native owners that there would be no need for compulsory acquisitions. The Maori soldiers should get the same opportunity for land settlement and the same support as every other soldier that went to the war. Mr Fraser read statements by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr S. G. Holland, that land settlement should be an essential part of the rehabilitation scheme, but that the guiding principle in all land settlement must be settlement at the productive value and no more. Question of Method “ How does the Opposition propose to arrive at the productive value other than by the method in the Bill? ” asked the Prime Minister. “In this House and in the country there is no difference of opinion about the objective of the measure. but only about how the job is to be dne. There has been no mention of any other way. The members of the Opposition do' not stand for exploitation of the soldiers and the country. These are their professions, and I want to see them implemented. No other scheme has been produced, and it is easy to try to denounce and destroy this one and to evade .suggesting something better." Replying to r.n interjection by Mr Doidge, whether he would give the men the freehold, the Prime Minister said lie would not object. That matter would be discussed with the men concerned. If, however, values were kept right as was provided for in the Bill, the problem of leasehold or freehold became a more or less academic one.