Vol. 176 No. 11
I move:—
That a sum not exceeding £21,210 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960, for certain Miscellaneous Expenses, including certain Grants-in-Aid, Compensation for Personal Injuries and Compensation and other Payments in connection with Injuries to Property (No. 24 of 1941).
I think it is on this Estimate that this matter arises. I got n acknowledgment last year or in 1957, I forget which, from the Minister or Finance, that the point I had raised in relation to the panel of official arbitrators was correct. There has been only one official arbitrator, but the Act says that there must be a panel of arbitrators, and it was admitted that one was not a panel. The matter was to be rectified, but I cannot find in this Estimate any indication at all that it has been so recified. I would be glad if the Minister could deal with that. I think it is in Subhead F1. It seems to be the same as before. It is at the bottom of page 74, where the Minister will see it mentioned that there was only one referee and arbitrator.
I understood that the Attorney General had advised—in fact, it is on the records of this House—that my view was correct and it was going to be changed, but it has not been changed yet and I would like to know why.
It has been done.
Why is it not included on page 74, which says there is only one referee and arbitrator?
There is only one being paid, perhaps. The second man is part-time and not being paid.
I beg the Minister's pardon.
There is only one being paid as arbitrator.
Surely the position is that there is a panel of arbitrators? The Act provides that it is for the person whose land is being acquired to select whatever name he wishes from the panel. Is the Minister suggesting that A. is paid and B. is not and they are both on that panel and that if the person selects B., then B. will have to arbitrate without payment?
He is not paid here.
Where is he paid? He must be paid somewhere.
He is a member of the Valuation Office staff. He is paid there. He is part time valuer and can be selected, of course, by anyone if they wish to select him. He is paid by them.
Does he get paid on the Valuation Office Estimate? Is there a special amount in on the Valuation Office Estimate, or is he merely paid as a civil servant?
He is just paid there in the ordinary way, but he is on the panel now and can be selected, if necessary.
Under the original Act, the Aquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, the system was to have a panel so that, as Deputy Sweetman said, there could be some choice given to a person whose land had been taken and so that he was not entirely at the mercy of one official arbitrator. I gather the situation to be that there is one official arbitrator, that is, the person we know for many years acting in these cases and against whom quite a number of appeals have been taken successfully; and in addition to that there is a member, so to speak, of a civil service staff —so that the applicant whose land is being taken is told now: "You can take either the ex-military man who has been an official arbitrator for years, or you can take someone from the Department which is interested in acquiring your land." That does not seem to be in accordance with the Act —certainly not in accordance with the intention of it.
The Attorney General is satisfied that the Act is being complied with.
I am not bothering about the Attorney General, as he may put his viewpoint before the Courts at a later stage. I am thinking of whether people whose lands are being acquired are satisfied that it is an equitable proceeding, whether it is legal or not.
We will come to that on Vote 23. It is an officer on Vote 23 who has been appointed.
Is that right?
Is it an officer out of the Valuation Office and therefore, an officer who would be paid out of Vote 23?
I am sorry. He is a valuer from the Office of Public Works.
Then, that Vote has been passed. However, we can deal with it on the Appropriation Bill.
