Farmers’ Misgivings Regarding New Land Valuation Bill

Wanganui Chronicle, 30 October 1948, Page 2

Farmers’ Misgivings Regarding New Land Valuation Bill

WELLINGTON, Oct. 27, (P.A.).— “I would like to say that the explanations of the Minister of Lands (Mr. Skinner) about the Land Valuation Court Bill will not allay the misgivings of farmers about the Bill, said Mr. W. N. Perry, Dominion President of Federated Farmers, in a statement.

“First of all, I wish to say that Federated Farmers is of the opinion that the president of the Court should be a member of the Supreme Court Bench. Secondly, it should be pointed out that the Government ha.s taken power to appoint the other two members. The Bill, as constituted, does give the Government power to establish a biased Court, which could be used to deny justice to property owners. “I wonder what would happen if a non-Labour Government took the power to appoint both assessors in the Arbitration Court? A further point is that if the members disagree with the Judge there is no decision and the Land Sales Committee’s decision stands. That is why Federated Farmers wishes to have similar provisions in the Bill to those which obtain at present for a rehearing by another tribunal in such a case. I must also disagree with the Minister’s statement that 'everyone is agreed on paying a tribute to the suitability’ of the Judge and members of the Land Sales Court.

“I have no desire to pillory any particular person, and consequently, I will say that the Minister should know that representations on this matter were made to a committee of the House on Tuesday. Federated Farmers says that either the Court must be improved, or else a right of appeal should be provided. “I understand that this view Is also supported by the New Zealand Law Society, which moreover agrees that under the present Land Sales Legislation there is a good deal of injustice. There is also a good deal of confusion about the actual effect of the proposed measure and the best legal opinion says that it does not provide for uniformity in values, as suggested by the Minister, since the Court has to operate three distinct and different acts.

"I would urge that the Bill be deferred so that it can be properly examined and discussed by all interested parties in consultation with the Government, so that sound and effective legislation can be brought down,” concluded Mr. Perry.