Right To Freehold Under Discussion In House Of Reps.

Wanganui Chronicle, 30 November 1948, Page 6

Right To Freehold Under Discussion In House Of Reps.

Parliament Passes Land Bill

PARLIAMENT BLDGS.. Last Night (PA).—Al] types of farmers would be represented on Ihe new Land Settlement Committees, said the Minister of Lands (Mr. Skinner) in the House of Representatives today when replyin" to a point, raised during a discussion on the Land Bill in Ihe committee stages. The Minister added that the Land Settlement Committees could have delegated to them all the powers of the Land Settlement Board itself.

A Government amendment to the clause dealing with the constitution of the Land Settlement Board—providing for the Director of Rehabilitation to be a member of the board—was agreed to without a division. The Minister was adamant in refusing Crown tenants representation on the board, adamant in having seven Government officials and two persons to be appointed bv the Government on the board, said Mr. S. W. Smith (Opp., Hobson;. He added that the Government would have complete control over those nine members. Mr. Smith moved for the deletion of the clause providing that the board shall give effect to any decision of the Government conveyed to it in writing by the Minister. Mr. Skinner said the clause was a reprint of that already appearing in other land legislation. Mr. Smith: It’s time it was cut out. Mr. Skinner: I don’t think so. He added that the board was an administrative one with the function of administering the Government policy. “The Government must retain power to direct.” he said. A division was called for and the clause was tetainned bv 31 votes to 27. Mr. A. S. Sutherland (Opp., Hauraki), moving that one member of each Land Settlement Committee should be a Crown tenant, said the Government in the same session was giving 7000 watersiders a total of 23 seats on harbour boards but was disfranchising 35.000 Crown tenants, who, in the past, had been represented on District Land Boards. CROWN TENANTS. Mr. Skinner said that Crown tenants had taken little interest in the elections for land boards. “We will see that Crown tenants are represented in future, although they themselves are not seeing to it at the present time.” said the Minister. who considered the amendment was unnecessary. It was defeated bv 31 votes to 27 as was another amendment, moved by Mr. H. C. Harker (Opp., Hawke’s Bay), seeking to free Crown tenants of the necessity to have written permission from the Commissioner of Lands before using any minerals on a property for building or farming purposes on the land they occupy. Mr. W. J. Broadfoot (Opp., Waitomo) moved the next amendment seeking to enable lessees or licencees to mortgage their interest in Crown land without having the prior consent of the Land Settlement Board. The amendment was defeated by 30 votes to 27.

Mr. R. M. Algie (Opp., Remuera) speaking to clause 100. which prohibits the cutting of timber on Crown land other than for use on the farm unless with the consent of the Commissioner, said the clause was a good one. However, in Southland and Westland, a number of tenants had. under the previous legislation, given contracts for the cutting of timber on the land they occupied. The Crown had either consented or assented to this practice and he asked that these existing contracts should be not interfered with. He moved an amendment to that effect, saying the Minister had already indicated his intention of respecting these contracts.

Mr. Skinner said the Crown would definitely not interfere with timber cutting contracts already in existence. He thought that was the commonsense way of dealing with the matter and no addition to the Bill was required. The amendment was defeated bv 32 votes to 27. Mr. F. Langstone (Govt., Roskill) said the clause was a verv necessary one. As roads went further into the back country, timber had been taken off more and more land, leaving much of it derelict for future occupants. The cost of restoring such land to productivity was high and and future logging should be properly controlled. Mr. Langstone, when referring to the clause providing for the right of acquisition of the fee simple, said that of all the Governments which New Zealand had had none had brought down legislation giving such a carte blanche in the right of acquisition of Crown lands. If the Bill included all lands it would meet with much opposition. The private owner who leased his land to another would not want the lessee to have the right to acquire the freehold. The Crown had always been the best landlord, but he could feel everywhere opposition against it. The Bill gave the right of freehold to all Crown land except the Hanmer leases, pastoral licence land and some which could be used for

commercial purposes. He was sure the Tory Government under the late Mr. W. F- Massey would not have brought down such a Bill with the right to which he objected in it. Mr. Langstone said he could remember the time when public feeling was in favour of the Crown being the owner of land and leasing it out. He would be sorry to see the unfettered right of freehold tenure to Crown land, because if all who could do so exercised that right it would mean the end of Crown land. How also could the right of freehold be denied to ex-servicemen tenants of State rental houses? Was not the same principle involved? Most Tory-minded people in New Zealand would never before have dared introduce such legislation giving the absolute right of freehold of Crown land. STATE HOUSES Mr. J. N. Massey (Opp., Franklin) said the same principle as that in the clause should apply to the occupiers of State houses. It was the policy of the Labour Party that all land should revert to the State, whereas the National Party held that the people should be encouraged to own the property. The Minister of Lands said there were only 7000 leases in New Zealand which did not carry freeholding clauses. It was quite inconsistent to have so many tenures available carrying the right* of freehold and others with no such rightMr. Skinner said more people had been able to freehold their farms and homes under this Government than under any previous Governments. Mr. Langstone: You mean more mortgages have been paid off? INTRIGUING INCIDENT. Mr. K. J. Holyoake (Opp., Pahiatua) said the speech of tne member tor Roskill had been the most intriguing incident in the House for some time. The rignt to the freehold was given by legislation passed by previous Governments. The member tor Roskill and other Socialists had capitalised on the hatred of tenants for landlords, but the member for Roskill now tound it was no different with the State as the landlord. Was the right to acquire freehold to be a continuing policy or was it to carry the Government over the next election campaign? Were they, in future, to see the fundamental policy of the Labour Party changed to just socialisation of the means of distribution and exchange, instead of socialisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange? He would look forward to the next annual conference of the Labour Party, for it was these conferences which decided what legislation should be brought down, o Mr. A. C. Baxter (Raglan) said there had always been differences of opinion in the Labour movement, for they were a progressive, thinking people. Over the years the right to the freehold of the land had been extended by succssive Governments until today control that Governments had had over land had vanished to the extent that it was no further use to a progressive Government. The occupier of land should utilise that land in the best interests of himself and the nation, and foe should be equitably rewarded for his services. The Government believed he had a right to improvements he put on the land, but what had not been done was to return to the community the commun-ity-created assets. That must be faced up to by Governments. He did not know that many of the Crown

tenants would choose to exercise their rights under the clause. If the freehold was such a glorious thing, why had so many not exercised that right in the past? Mr. Baxter asked why had certain members of the Parliament of today and in the past not done sg? The The reason was that it was of no material advantage. The late Mr. G. W. Forbes had not exercised the right to freehold his land because he knew, as an intelligent farmer, that it was of no material advantage to him. If the State set the example and gave the right to the freehold then land held tinder private lease should fall into line. If the private owner would not do that then the onus was on the Government to bring down legislation to see that he did so. Mr. Langstone said that the State had spent millions on the purchase of land for settlement and now proposed to hand it back again. He thought the clause was not in the best interests of the State.

The clause was agreed to without dissent and the Bill was given its third reading and passed before the House adjourned for tea at 5.30 p.m.