FARM SOLD TO CIVILIAN

Southland Times, Issue 25736, 28 July 1945, Page 6

FARM SOLD TO CIVILIAN

Former Serviceman’s Complaint

ECONOMIC BASIS OF VALUATION

A complaint that a farm in the Tokanui district, which a returned soldier wished to acquire, had been sold to a civilian who already owned land in the district was made at a meeting of the District Council of the Invercargill R.S.A. yesterday. Mr G. Wardle (Southern Districts) said that the soldier was graded A for a ‘ farm and he applied for the farm in question. A report was sent to Wellington recommending favourable consideration, but the next that the soldier heard about the matter was that the land had been sold to a civilian. In other words, the farm had just been turned oyer to a civilian without giving the soldier a chance of making arrangements privately to acquire the farm. Apparently the farm had been turned down as a suitable property for a soldier on the ground that it was not an economic unit. Yet the farm had been run as a separate unit for years, and men who had farmed in the district considered that it was an economic unit. However, apparently Government valuers took no notice of men in a district who should know the value and productive capacity of land in that district.

Mr C. Humphries (Tokanui) said that there had been a lot of adverse local comment about the case. It deemed wrong that a man who already owned land should be allowed to acquire more when a returned man wanted the land acquired. The opinion that the land, settlement policy for returned servicemen was in need of revision was expressed by Mr R. E. Mbntieth (Gorge Road). He had heard it said that the Government would not settle one returned man in the area between the Mataura river and the Seaward Bush line. All that area had been declared “black.” Yet returned men of the last war, who had settled in this area, had done well. One of these men, who wished to retire, had offered his farm for the settlement of a soldier, but the department was not interested. “There will have to be a change of policy if we are to get the men settled on the land,” Mr Montieth added.

Mr T. Hickey (Edendale): The Government valuers should take notice of the members of local rehabilitation committees. The valuers have to work to a standard, but in some cases in the opinion of men who know a district this standard might be altered and concessions made. Mr Wardle: The members of the local rehabilitation committee were all in favour of this property as a farm for a soldier. OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

Further discussion of the matter was held over until the afternoon when Mr D. Wilson, of the State Advances Corporation, and Mr A. M. Weir, a Government valuer, attended the meeting of the council. Mr Wilson said that the State Advances Corporation was only an agent in rehabilitation matters and carried out the policy laid down by the Rehabilitation Board. The corporation had a representative on each rehabilitation committee, but he was only one among many and could not decide what should be done. The local committee set up for the purpose of granting loans to returned men was working satisfactorily. The committee had not unlimited powers. It could not turn down an application for a loan. If the committee felt that a loan should not be granted the matter was referred to Wellington for investigation, because the Government was anxious to see that no injustice was done to a returned man. The State Advances Corporation had no say in the acquisition of land for returned men, but when a returned man wished to buy a farm privately he came to the corporation through the local rehabilitation committee. The case referred to by Mr Wardle had not come before the corporation so far as the question of acquiring the land for the settlement of a soldier was concerned. That would be dealt with by the Lands Department. In valuing land for the settlement of soldiers the Lands Department followed the procedure laid down in the Act. Mr Montieth asked if Mr Weir had inspected the property in question on behalf of the Lands Department. Mr Weir: I did not inspect this property.

Mr Wardle: It seems that we have got the wrong departmental officials to come along. The Act is quite effective, but it is the administration of the Act that is wrong. “DOING AN HONEST JOB” Mr Wilson: The departmental officials are entirely disinterested in a question of this sort. They do an honest job, but there are a lot of differences of opinion about land values. It is no good blackguarding the officials. What you have to do is to prove your case that they made a mistake in a valuation. You can go to the Land Sales Court and see the reports of the valuers and their figures if a valuation is disputed. There is no hole-in-the-corner business about it. We know what happened after the last war through men being put on uneconomic units. Some of them, not through any fault of their own, are not clear yet. We do not want to make the same mistake again. One of the first things that the R.S.A. pushed for in this war was that the returned men should be placed on economic holdings. Mr Wardle: You leave the so-called uneconomic holdings to civilians. They are good enough for civilians, but not for soldiers.

Mr Wilson: You have got to remember that the returned men are going on to the land at a time when the prices of everything are sky high. The men must be able to meet their charges and make a fair living. In border line cases it is better not to take risks. Other men may have made a living off a farm, but they may not have been loaded 100 per cent. Mr Wardle: They did not pay 3 per cent, for their money either. Mr Weir said that in the case referred to by Mr Wardle the soldier had not been graded for a farm when the property was sold to a civilian. Mr Wilson suggested that Mr Wardle should refer the case to the Lands Department. He assured the delegates that if they had any difficult cases which came within the province of his department he would be only too pleased to discuss the details with them.