LAND FOR PUBLIC WORKS

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 19141, 9 October 1936, Page 5

LAND FOR PUBLIC WORKS

BASIS OF COMPENSATION ALTERATION IN LAW 1 'PROTECTIONG TILE SI 1 ATE'' (Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, this day. A miniature Public Works Bill included in the Finance Bill aroused strong comment from the Opposition when the measure was considered in the House of Representatives last night, this clause occupying a whole page to set out conditions under which compensation is payable in respect of lauds taken for public works.

It was explained by the Minister ol Finance, the Hon. \V. Nash, that it became necessary, owing to the decision of the court in recent cases which reversed the long-standing principle thai compensation should be, payable on the basis of the value of the land before public works increased the land values in the neighbourhood. He had an instance of one block of land where the court awarded slightly less than three times its value, simply because the State was spending so much money in Hie district.

The lit. Hon. .!. O. Coates (Nat Kaipara); The poor State.

Mr. Xash asked if anyone could say that it was right that the owner ol' land worth £6OO, because the Govern ment carried out public works, should get £SOOO for that area. Should he take £4500 of public money for no service whatever? Nobody had the right to hold the community up to ransom in this way, and filch from the public funds. IMPORTANT CHANGES Mr. Coates, who strongly protested against, important changes in the law being put through Parliament without proper time for consideration, referred particularly to the change in compensation for taking land. It was a farreaching amendment which should have been referred to the Law Society and to judges for their opinion. The Hon. R. Semple, Minister of Public Works, stated that the clause under discussion was actually drafted on the instruction of a former Minister ol' Public Works. Mr. .1. Kitchener. For 46 years the principle had always applied that when land was taken under the Public Works Act the court assessed it at the existing market value. Then the law was tested by the Tawa Cen fcral Company, of Wellington, and the Court of Appeal had held that the laud was to be assessed at its value after the improvements had been carried out.

If there had been no railway deviation to Tawa Flat, said tiie Minister, the value of the land taken in that case would have been £865, and that was what the Crown was entitled to pay. Mr. Coates: Is that fair? APPEAL COURT WRONG

Mr. Semple: Yes. positively and definitely fair. All that the owner of the land is entitled to is the market value of his land. Mr. Coafes; Bid bis neighbour gets (he benefit.

Mr. Semple: lie is not entitled to squeeze money out of the nation tor something he never earned. The judgment of the court was that instead of being awarded £865, the company received from the State £2IOO. That was the value assessed by the court, and it was a fictitious, false, value. Mi'. Coates: A unanimous decision. Mr. Semple said if was not a unanimous decision, but if »t had been ii was wrong, fundamentally wrong. The Minister said he remembered an election not long ago when there was a slogan "Follow England," and the clause in the bill was in line with English law. Mr. Semple read the instructions given to the'law draftsman by Mr. Bitchener, when Minister of Public Works, to prepare a clause putting the position right. The clause was ultimately drafted in a bill prepared by the late' Government. Mr. Coates: Aha! But what happened to it? "TO PREVENT ROBBERY" Mr. Semple said there was another case coining on. and it was necessary to have the legislation to save the State being robbed. The Government was taking over a building in McGinnity street, Wellington, and if the pre sent law was allowed to exist the Government would have to pay thousands of pounds to private landowners for some thing they never created. The clause that the 'Opposition was opposing and attempting to ridicule in a feeble kind of way was a clause written by themselves and put into a bill. ' Mr. Coates: Nonsense ! Absolutely incorrect ! "The right honourable gentleman is a good judge of nonsense," retorted the Minister. He added that, he had a draft of the previous Government's bill. Mr. Coates: Did the previous Government approve of it? The Minister: The bill was drafted and stands in their name. It was drafted, he said, on the suggestion of lieads of the department to save the nation being "rooked" of thousands of pounds by speculators. Mr. Coates: The poor little hindowners. The Minister: I would rather be a poor little lamb than a blatant donkey. (Laughter.) He wanted to be protected against that sort of thing. Mr. Coates: Protected from a few land owners. Very brave that!