PAST MISTAKES

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

PAST MISTAKES

preventing repetition GOVERNMENT’S LAND POLICY (F.0.P.R.) WELLINGTON, Aug. 12. “The Government would only be doing its obvious duty if it could prevent a repetition of what happened in the settlement of returned men after the last war,” said the Minister of Health, Mr A. H. Nordmeyer, during the debate on the Servicemen’s Settlement and Land Sales Bill in the House of Representatives to-night. Referring to the enhancement of land values, he said that in 1912 the capital value of the land in New Zealand was £315,000,000, and in 1928 it had risen to £618,000,000. In the same period the mortgages on land had increased from £88,000,000 to £302,000,000. The Minister said there was nothing new in the proposal to have transfers of land sanctioned by an authority. Every transaction concerning me transfer of leasehold Crown land had to be approved by a land board under the existing legislation. If the board considered the suggested price excessive, it required an adjustment or refused its consent. The present Bill proposed to apply the same principle to freehold land, the consent to be given by an impartial judical authority. There was nothing more illusory than inflated land values. Unless the Government took the steps proposed in this Bill, a man who sold his home would find that he would have to pay more to buy another house similar to his former one. The Minister added that the powers for the acquisition of land—and these did not apply to houses—were the same as had existed in several Acts passed by former Governments. He challenged the Opposition to say whether they opposed the taking of land for settling returned men. Mr W. A. Bodkin (Oppn., Central Otago): We all stand for taking land for them. The Minister: On what basis? Mr Bodkin: The economic value. That is the productive value. The Minister: That is precisely the formula laid down in this Bill. Continuing the Minister asked if it was the desire of the Opposition to place men on second class back-country land. Opposition members: No. The Minister: Then how are we to get first class land without a Bill like this? Mr Nordmeyer said the Government had introduced this controversial measure on the eve of the election, knowing that it would be distorted and misrepresented, and a whispering campaign started, and chat it would be accused of nationalising the land. It had done so as it was its duty to make provision for the returning servicemen. Sir Aplrana Ngata (Oppn., Eastern Maori) said that everyone wanted to see proper provision made for the settlement of returned soldiers. The question was the right way to go about it. The Prime Minister had nearly disposed ot the possible objections of the Maori members and the Maori people, and he was glad that part II of the Bill Was not to apply to Maori land or to land owned by Natives. The Bill, as it was worded, undoubtedly included Native land and several classes of land owned by Natives. The whole machinery of the Bill was in practice inapplicable to the Maoris and their lands. “ There might be some justification for the attitude of those who say that the Bill is a little too late, but I can assure the House that it is absolutely necessary,” said Mr E. P. Meachen (Govt., Marlborough). He added that any delay in bringing down the measure was due to the Government’s desire to be scrupulously fair. Use had been made of the' most expert advice that the Government could obtain.

The debate was interrupted by the adjournment at 10.30.