BETTERMENT BILL.

Otago Witness, Issue 3100, 13 August 1913, Page 6

BETTERMENT BILL.

AX ACADEMIC DISCUSSION,

(From Our Own Correspondent.) WELLINGTON, August 7. The Betterment Bill introduced by Mr R. M'Callum this evening provided the House with an interesting academic subject for discussion. The operative clause of the Bill has a Lloyd Georgian touch, and the English statesman was frequently referred to during the evening as being in absolute agreement with the proposals. The principal clause states that after the Minister of Public Works opens for public use any line of railway, then the owners, lessees, and occupiers of all lands adjacent to the said line and all owners, etc., of lands in proximity to the line benefited or changed in value by reason of that opening, shall pay to the Minister by way of compensation or contribution such sums as shall represent one-half of the increased value by the public use of the line. An agreement to this effect may be entered into between the Minister and the respective landholders before or after the opening of the line. A court of compensation would be provided to ascertain and award the amount of compensation due.

These members of the House ■who are closely connected with the land and its administration found little in this proposal to commend, and declared their intention of voting agaist the Bill. These members were chiefly to be found on the Government side, and Opposition members took advantage of this to raise the party issue and Claim that the Bill would become a touchstone of progressive legislation. They challenged Government members to announce themselves upon the measure and prove their claims to bo advanced and reformative.

In defence, Mr J. A. Young made an excellent speech, summarising some objections to the “crude” proposal brought down by Mr M'Callum. He said that while the principle of betterment was satisfactory they had to see that the basis selected would he fair and equitable. Justice had not been done to the House or to the Bil' in its explanation. The question of taxation was involved, and was of serious concern, but this had been carefully left out of the Bill. The position was that compensation would be claimed on the full valuation, but taxation under this measure would still be payable on the full figure, therefore the “man would be paying taxation on values which, he had paid away, which was not logical at all. Further, the basis for valuing lands had not been set forth. It was not stated whether the land was to be valued before or after the line was opened. This showed the utter ambiguity of the measure, which had not received proper consideration. There were many egregious oversights which he could not vote for. If a Bill endorsing the principle alone had been introduced he would have supported it. but he could not support the Bill as it stood.

After Mr M'Callum had replied the lion. J. Allen raised an interesting point by asking the Speaker’s ruling on the point of order whether the Bill imposed taxation or made an appropriation and whether, if so, a private member could introduce such a measure. It seemed to him that the Bill did impose taxation. The Speaker ruled that the Bill did impose taxation, but that the second reading could he proceeded with, although the Cabinet would have to intimate its consent or otherwise before the third

reading. On the voices the Bill was read a second time. The position is that if the Cabinet does not approve of the measure and intimate its consent the Bill will not be proceeded with.