LAND TENURE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 25718, 14 December 1944, Page 6

LAND TENURE

FREEHOLD FOR SOLDIERS

GOVERNMENT’S REFUSAL (P.A.) WELLINGTON, Dec. 13.

“The New Zealand Returned Services’ Association has no hesitation in saying that it cannot accept the tenure (sometimes called ‘ the Bryant freehold’) embodied in the Land Laws Amendment Bill now before Parliament as satisfying its constant demands for the granting of the right to acquire the freehold to discharged servicemen of this war who are settled on the land," said the Dominion president ot the R.S.A., Mr B. J. Jacobs, in an interview to-day. “ When the Small Farms Amendment Bill was submitted by the Government for consideration by the association in 1940, a special conference was called to discuss its provisions,” Mr Jacobs continued. “The right to acquire the freehold was then adopted as part of the policy of the association, and has remained so ever since. Before the Bill mentioned was passed by Parliament representations were made to the Cabinet in this regard, and similar representations have been made since. “In reply to our representations it has been stated,' among other things: (a) That the granting of the right to acquire the freehold is against the general policy of the Government; (b) that a leasehold under the 'Act, as a land holding, is quite as satisfactory as a freehold; (c) that a freehold title with a mortgage on it is not really a freehold at all (no reference is made to the substantial mortgage on the leases); (d) that comparatively few of the settlers of the last war under the Discharged Soldiers’ Settlement Act have availed themselves of the similar right they possess. “The association's argument against these statements is unanswerable. It is simply that, in barest justice, the men of this war should enjoy at least the same right as is enjoyed by the large majority of ordinary Crown tenants (excluding those settled under the Small Farms Act); that\ they should enjoy at least the same rights as are possessed by the men of the last war settled under the Discharged Soldiers’ Settlement Act; and that they should enjoy at least the same rights as those Crown tenants who (and the association does not quarrel with the decisions) were excused from rendering service in the armed forces in order to continue production. When all is said and done, it is only a right, but they are very definitely entitled to it. The Government’s policy should' not transcend justice. , • • , “The auestion of freehold v. leasehold constitutes a rather academic argument.” Mr • Jacobs concluded, “and should not affect the consideration of the matter, for surely the individual settler will be able to please himself. Likewise the Government’s arguments as set. out above are not at all relevant in the light of the contentions of the association.”