RETURNED MEN ON LAND

Southland Times, Issue 25546, 14 December 1944, Page 2

RETURNED MEN ON LAND

R.S.A. Urges Grant Of Freehold (P.A.) WELLINGTON, December 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, which is 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 have settled on the land,” said the Dominion president, Mr B. J. Jacobs, in an interview today. “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. 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 through Parliament, representations were made to the Cabinet in this regard and similar ones have been continued. In reply to our representations, it has been stated among other things:— GOVERNMENT’S POLICY “(a) That the granting of the right to acquire the freehold is against the general policy of the Government. “(b) That the leasehold under the act as a land holding is quite as satisfactory as the freehold. “(c) That a freehold title with a mortgage on it is not really a freehold at all. (No reference is made to a substantial mortgage on the leases). “(d) That comparatively few of the settlers of last war under the Discharged Soldiers’ Settlement Act have availed themselves of a similar right they possess. “The association’s argument against these statements is unanswerable. It is simply this, that in bhrest justice the men of this war should enjoy at least the same right as is enjoyed by a large the same rights as those Crown tenants (excluding those settled under the Small Farms Act); that they should enjoy at least the same rights as 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 Cwron 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. “ARGUMENTS NOT RELEVANT” “When all is said and done, it is only a right, but they very definitely are entitled to it. Government policy should not transcend justice. The question of freehold versus leasehold constitutes rather an academic argument and should not affect the consideration of the matter, for surely the individual settler will be able to please himself. Likewise, the three arguments set out above are not at all relevant in the light of the contentions of the association.”