LAND LAW AMENDMENT

Taranaki Daily News, 19 October 1927, Page 9

LAND LAW AMENDMENT

BILL BEFORE THE HOUSE PROVISION FOR REVALUATION. «. REMISSIONS TO SOLDIER FARMERS. e Bj Telegraith—'Press Association. Wellington, Last Night. The House to-day proceeded to the second reading of the Land Laws Amendment. Bill, in moving which the Hon. A. D. McLeod, Minister of Lands, said the proposals in the Bill had been necessary to preserve the interests of those on the land rather than to promote new settlements . There were other clauses of importance. Where a land board had to administer certain endowments it was proposed that the department should receive payment for its services. The office of the "ranger” or “Crown lands ranger” had been abolished and the office of “field inspector of Crown lands” substituted.

The Minister said a new clause would be proposed in regard to the appointment of umpires in arbitration proceedings to ensure that the provisions of the Arbitration Act were not infringed. Clause 8 provided that a lease granted on renewal should be subject to the encumbrances affecting the expired lease, and a further clause enabled mortgaged leases in certain eases to be sold by private contract. As to the disposition of land classified as town, suburban or village land, it was laid down that the upset price at which. allotments might be sold would not have to be stated.

In connection with the Hutt Valley settlement, the right was being given to take up two sections on the deferred payment system, but it was not intended that, a speculator should be able to benefit. The restriction in the Act- of 1924 which prohibits Crown tenants from applying for revaluation of their lands within three years from the commencement of their leases or licenses, or after six years is to be partially removed, while the right to apply for revaluation is to be extended to cover holders of land under various Land Acts now in existence. DEFERRED PAYMENT SYSTEM. A notable addition in this respect was that lands purchased on deferred payments may be revalued, any reduction which is made to be with respect to the purchase price and not with regard to the rate of interest-. Application for the right to exercise the privilege of having a revaluation made within three years or after six years is to be made to a hoard consisting of the Under-Secretary of Lands, the Valuer-General and the Land Purchase Inspector. The Bill seeks the repeal of a clause which makes it compulsory to pay into the National Endowment Trust Account the value of any inferior lands which are taken from the national endowments for special settlement purposes. The right of licensees to occupy Crown lands with right of purchase is to be extended until 1930 instead of expiring this year. Provision is also made in the Bill for adding to th e price of CYown lands for disposal the cost of subdivision and public improvements carried out by the Government before the land is offered for sale.

Several amendments are made in the Discharged Soldier Settlement Acts. Authority is to be given for the remission of rent in the ease of land disposed of to discharged soldiers, but which is now held by some other person. Land boards, with the consent of the Minister, are to be empowered to remit in eases of hardship the whole or part of interest payable by discharged soldiers with respect to their mortgages on land held under the Discharged Soldiers Settlement Act, 1917. The benefits of the Deteriorated Lands Act, 1925, are to be extended to soldiers holding land under the Act of 1917. REMISSION COMES TOO LATE. Mr. M. J. Savage commented on. clause 18 (giving authority for “remission of rent in case of land disposed of to discharged soldier, but not now held by discharged soldier.”) He said many returned soldiers had walked off their farms because the land had been bought at too high a price. There could new be no remission of rent to them, because they had gone, but his interpretation of clause 18 was that it was now proposed, to make this remission to the succeeding settler, who was not a returned soldier. Mr. Savage did not complain at this, but he regretted the step had not been taken earlier so that the soldiers might have had the benefit of it. Many good men had lost their farms because of this delay. So far as the Bill was progressive he complimented the Government upon it, but he feared he was not going to stray very far from the policy which the Reform Party had laid down. Mr. G. W. Forbes criticised the policy of settling poor gum lands by giving such lands away. That was not going to get them very far. The Government must get behind the settlement of poor lands because more capital was required to work them than was the ease with rich lands, and only poor men would take them up. The trouble with our land settlement was that we were letreating, not advancing, and the policy of the Minister evidently was to keep what settlers he had. There was, however, a good deal of leeway to make up, because there were many abandoned farms still empty. To have them reoccupied should be the first duty of the Minister, since the longer they were unoccupied the more they would deteriorate and the more difficult it would be to again bring them into profit. The Hon. D. Buddo deprecated any attempt to settle poor settlers on pool land.

Mr. A. Bell defended the proposals to settle the gum lands of the Far North which, he said, were being rapidly changed from gum to dairying lands. After the Minister had briefly replied the Bill was read a second time.