SMALL FARMS

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 61, Issue 40, 27 November 1940, Page 8

SMALL FARMS

BILL BEFORE THE HOUSE.

BRISK DEBATE TAKES PLACE.

P' T (Pei* Press Association). “ WELLINGTON, November 26. In 1 the House, of Representatives tins afternoon, the Prime Minister moved for urgency when the continuation of the second reading of the Small Farms Amendment Bill, which was adjourned when the House rose in . October was reached on the orderpaper. Mr Fraser explained that it was not proposed to keep the House later than midnight to-night on the second reading stage of this measure. Mr W. J.. Poison (National, Stratford) : Whw urgency ? •' Mr-Fraser : It is urgent to finish the session.

The motion was forced to a division .by the Opposition and the motion for urgency was carried by 43 votes to 21, voting being strictly on party lines.

Resuming his speech in the second reading debate, which was interrupted by. the adjournment of the House on October 11, Mr W. J. Broadfoot (National, Waitomo) reminded the House that there was on the Statute Book the Discharged Soldiprs Settlement Act,' which contained all the machinery necessary for placing soldiers on the land. In the present Bill there were .some, undesirable aspects, and it •was possible that the “eyes might be picked out” of a person’s land without compensation being paid. Although there was powei> under the Bill to take land for: returned soldiers, there was no mention of the conditions under which the land should be made available. .The Bill was not warranted at present, and‘he was surprised that urgency bad been claimed for it. The .Hon. Sir Alfred Ransom (National, . Pahiatua) said that returned soldiers were being used by the Minister of Lands to. socialise the land. The Bill could have only one primary aim, namely, to put into effect the Government’s policy of socialisation. Under the Bill it would be possible to take land from soldiers who had already been .settled. He did not suggest that the Government had any intention of doing that, hut the power was there. The l men overseas were fighting for freedom, but when they returned the Government would not give them freedom of the land they occupied. All they'could expect was to occupy the land. as. State tenants. The settlement of -ox-soldiers, on the land was merely a-.blind, he said, and was unquestionably being used for the socialisation of land, otherwise there was no necessity for the Bill; Principles Violated. Mr C. G. E. Harker, the new member for Waipawa, who was making his maiden speech, declared it was because the Opposition desired a comprehensive, effective measure for the settlement of returned soldiers that they opposed the'Bill in its present form. The tenure provisions in the Bill, he said, violated every principle of security. Was it -any wonder that the Returned Soldiers’ Association had demanded the right to ’acquire the freehold? Returned soldiers wanted a special Bill about which they could he heard and which should not be rushed through the House in the dying stages of the session. It was only by giving the right to the freehold that the main principles of land settlement could be achieved. He suggested that the measure should be replaced by an amendment to the Discharged Soldiers Settlement Act and that the Returned Soldiers’ Association should have an opportunity to examine it thoroughly. • Mr E. P. Meachen (Labour, Marlborough),. said he did not care what title was given to. the Bill. All he wonted was to see the job done, and jtie was satisfied the Bill would do that job... .

; The Minister of Housing (tho Hon. H; T. .Armstrong) said the Government was trying to avoid the mistakes of the past and was making provision in this Bill to do the right thing for soldiers. A reasonable price would be paid for the land, and he contended the principle underlying the opposition to the Bill was tho “God-given right of the landowner to hold out against any Government until lie received the price he-thought his land was worth.” Mr Lee, he said, had partly supported the Bill and partly condemned it, but the Government did not want partial support. Mr Lee: You want “Yes men.” Mr Armstrong: We want yes or no men.

Replying to opposition criticism that men settled under the Bill would have no security of tenure, the Minister said their safeguard would he that the legislation would be administered by a Labour (Government for generations to conic. Last time, lie said, the soldier settlement scheme was prepared hurriedly, but this time the Government was preparing# early so that the best possible system for putting returned men on the land might be devised. The Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates expressed the opinion that settlers should have the option of freehold or leasehold, and he asked the Prime Minister and Minister of Lands to reconsider the substitution of a Magistrate for a Judge of the Supreme Court, and also the question of leaving enough land for the original farmer to make a reasonable living. Let the men who came back get the best deal possible, but at the same timo give a fair deal to the men who farmed the land and were making a material contribution to our .security., .. L'. . Trying to Avoid Mistakes. (Mr Fraser said he hoped all members agreed that ample provision should he made for land settlement on a sound economic basis for soldiers who returned and that the mistakes of the past, some of them tragic, should be avoided. - Thd -men who came back would not stand-for similar mistakes as thosenra'de' 'm ‘ tfie past, when there were not even enough houses for those who, wished to settle down. The Go-

vernment had to make preparations now for the settlement of the men who would return, and in this direction had to watch, all the contingencies which might arise. It did not want to repeat the mistakes of the past. In saying that he did not' wish to begin any recriminations, but rather that we should learn from our past mistakes. If returned men wished to settle, on the land we must make provision for them to do so. Reference had been made to the efforts of farmers in the war, but be would also point to similar efforts by other sections of the community. We were all interdependent, he said, and each relied on the efforts of others. Where it was necessary for the war effort, he said, the Government stood for compulsion being/used. This’might not be necessary. Some members had said that landholders would come forward and offer land for settlement. If this were so then let them come forward. If land could be obtained through people coming forward and offering it or by negotiation and purchase then this would be the best method, but this method had not been adequate. If it could he shown it were adequate then so much the better.

Mr W. S. Goosmnn (National, Waikato) : Has it been tried ? Mr Fraser: Yes. During the last two or three years 27,153 acres have been acquired. Compulsion as Last Resort. Mr Fraser gave an assurance that no compulsion would be used except when! three or mo|re farms could .be established where there was one at the present time. The case for compulsion was that no individual should be allowed to sit on land and lock it. up and stand in the way of soldier settlers. Mr W. A. Bodkin (National, Central Otago) made a strong appeal for the right of landowners to take appeals to the Supreme Court. All recognised that compulsion had 1 to be written into the law, he said, but it had to be accompanied by safeguards. Whatever Government was in office the pressure of public opinion would be so great that it would have to find land for soldiers, but in the process of getting the land list it see that no injustice was done to individuals.

Mr A. H. Nordmeyer (Labour, Oainaru) said there would 1 have been no opposition to the Bill if it had not been for 'the activities of paid agitators who toured the country and had b«en active, especially in the Wellington province, in endeavouring to stir up political animosity on the vprt of the farming community. The debate was then interrupted and Mr F'raser, in reply to a question as to tho future business of the session, said there would be a Finance Bill, one clause of which would be an extension of the pensions scheme to members of the. Home Guard. The session should finish at the end of next week and the House would adjourn until February or March for the new session. The House rose at 11.46 p.m.