PARLIAMENT

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 56, Issue 6, 19 October 1935, Page 2

PARLIAMENT

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. SMALL FARMS BILL PASSES. ■ I. (Abridged from Press Association). WELLINGTON, October 18. In the House of Representatives this morning some time was taken up with the reports of the Mines and Goldfields Committee on the petitions of men seeking compassionate allowances or miners’ pensions because they alleged that they had contracted miners’ pthisis. In most cases the petitions were referred to the Government for most favourable consideration. , . Mr Samuel and Mr JSaVage referred to the conflict of medical evidence in those cases, and Mr Samuel urged that a Committee of the House should be set up to overcome the situation that had arisen. Mr Savage said he recognised the difficulties of the Minister, in dealing with cases where there was conflict of evidence, but he said those difficulties must be overcome. : ; . Mr W. E. Parry _(Lab., Auckland Central), said that a liberal reading of the Pensions Act would allow the Government to give pensions in such cases. The Minister of Lands (Sir Alfred Ransom) moved the second reading of the Small Farms (Relief of Unemployment) Amendment Bill. He said that in Committee he would move to delete clause nine, providing that interest charges could be paid out of -the Un- f employment Fund. Mr M. J. Savage (Leader of the Opposition) wondered if the Minister had satisfied himself that the Bill was the solution of anything in unemployment, or 'if that method of dealing with land matters was any solution of the real question of land settlement. Mr E. F. Healy (Ind., Wairau), sard the small faims scheme had been a failure in the South Island.

Mr W. J. Broadfoot (Waitomo), referred to the success of the scheme in the North Island. He considered' it a modern form of settlement, and thought the probable cause of the failure in the South was the high cost of land. That form of settlement was bringing many advantages to rural areas in the form of better education and social facilities.

Mr D. G. Sullivan (Lab., Avon), said there was a feeling that the men in the South Island had not been given an opportunity to take up land.

The Hon. W. Downie Stewart (Coalition, Dunedin West), said he was afraid that the men urho had saved a little money were being overlooked for those who had nothing. He knew that much money had been spent in stumping and cleaning land, but that was one # of the things they had to contend with, and he was sure the Bill would do a great deal of good. Mr A. S. Richards (Lab., Roskill) said that the only hope of increasing prosperity was to stop increasing the rural population, and developing secondary industry. . ' y. v Mr J. Hargest (C., Invercargill) said that there was no limit to land settlement in New Zealand, so long as there were areas capable of maintaining a healthy rural population. He agreed that secondary should he encouraged, but they would have to find a market in the Dominion and particularly in rural greas. For a small farms scheme it was essential that the land should be reasonably good, and that good men were chosen. In that way the scheme could be made a success, and he appealed to members to co-operate and help it. Mr E. J. Howard (Lab., Christchurch South) said there were many men who wanted to go on the land, and they should do all they could to meet that land hunger. At the same time, greater consideration should be given to secondary industries, and that would settle the unemployment problem much better and much quicker than the small farms scheme.

Sir Alfred Ransom, in reply, said 'the object of the Government was to. try and establish a man on a farm that would give him a living without having to seek outside work. To date, £594,209 had been spent on the scheme, and there 'were also commitments outstanding amounting to £BB,OOO. The South Island did not lend itself to close settlement as did the North Island, and in some cases the price asked was too high. He regretted that it had not been possible to do more/in the South Island, and he thought that there were possibilities in the Canterbury district by means of irrigation, which was now past the experimental stage.

The Bill was put through committee, where Clause 9 was deleted. It was then read a third time and passed. On the motion to commit the Coal Mines Amendment Bill, Mr Savage asked why the coal-mining companies did not damp slack under water, or else why did not the State begin at the face and take all coal. It might be that the State was taking on the liability, leaving the assets to the companies. He could not see that any benefit could come to the State, or else the companies would have acted themselves. He thought that The coal mines* should be further developed-

The Hon, C. E. Macmillan said it. was not possible to establish a hydrogeneration plant on a small scale, for it would not be possible to secure sufficient slack coal in the South Island to keep the plant going. He was endeavouring to conserve stocks of coal which otherwise would be destroyed by spontaneous combustion, by storing it under water. That was done every day in America, where waste was not allowed to occur. The dumping of coal into the lake would not adversely affect the surrounding country, as the lake had a natural outlet.

The Motion for committal was agreed to.

“KNOWLEDGE IS THE ANTIDOTE TO FEAR” —Emerson