SMALL FARMS BILL

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 61, Issue 41, 28 November 1940, Page 3

SMALL FARMS BILL

MR DICKIE MOVES AMENDMENT.

NINE POINTS OF CRITICISM.

(Per Press Association)

WELLINGTON, November 27

Continuing the second reading debate on the Small Farms Act Amendment Mill, Mr E. B. Gordon (National, Rangitikei) said the fact that Government speakers had given assurances that certain clauses of the Bill -would not be taken advantage of proved there were loopholes of' which advantage could be taken if required. It was not the Government’s intention to take land under certain conditions that should be written into the Bill, for under the Bill now before the House the Government could plainly take any land it chose.

Mr P. K. Paikea (Labour, Northern Maori) said many criticisms of the Bill had been made from the point of view of those remaining in New Zealand instead of going overseas. There was every need to make provision for soldiers’ rehabilitation to-day, not later. Already some men had been invalided home and we did not know when more might return. He hopjpd ijhat the psychology of the previous Act and its administration Avould not be reintroduced, and that pakeha and Maori returned men would have equal opportunities of making satisfactory land selections. He also* asked the Minister to ensure that where blocks of land adjacent to Maori communities were cut up, preference would be given to Maori men if possible in order to settle them among their own people.

Special Bill Urged. Mr W. S. Goosman (National, Waikato) declared the assurances such as had been given by Mr Fraser that land would not be taken over unless at least three soldiers could be established on it should be written into the Bill, if they were not merely _an afterthought inspired by the widespread opposition to the measure which had been evident in many quarters. What farmers objected to was that under the Bill the Government was taking the right to appropriate all land without safeguard to the present holders against total dispossession as in the existing Lands for Settlement Act*. Moreovei, though there was still much land in New Zealand to be broken in, it was doubtful if the owners would undertake improvements if there was a risk of the Government taking their land once they had raised it to a certain level of development. He urged a special Bill providing for the rehabilitation of soldiers not only on the land but in all walks of life.

Mr J. Robertson (Labour, Masterton) said Opposition speakers had asked for safeguards for landowners, but what about safeguards for soldier settlers? The purpose of the Bill could only be what it purported to be, namely, to provide the machinery for establishing the right of returned men to share in a land for t the defence of which they were at present overseas. If one went closely into the provisions of the Bill it would be seen how futile were the Opposition criticisms of it. “Complete Socialisation.” Mr F. W. Doidge (National, Tauranga) characterised the Bill as a ‘‘land mine.” It looked innocent enough on the surface, but it was not all it appeared to be. It took away the right of the’ freehold and denied access of appeal to the highest court in the land. The Bill humbugged people because, although the Minister of Lands had said there was no hidden purpose behind it, he had stealthily engineered in its provisions a policy of complete socialisation. There was nothing in it about the soldier settler who was simply being made a stalking horse to take away the freehold. Confiscation was stamped over every clause and every feature of the measure. If the Prime Minister and the Minister in charge of the Bill really wanted to get down to concerted effort in the House let them quit this stealthy scheme to socialise New Zealand under the cloak of the war effort. Let them follow the example of Mr Winston Churchill and they would take the bitterness out of politics in NeAV Zealand. No Confiscation. Mr D. W. Coleman (Labour, Gisborne) said there was no confiscation about the Bill. Land required for soldiers was to be bought at a fair price. What more could anyone ask? Those who were loudest in their agitation against the Bill had been loudest in agitating for the conscription of men. They had said, “All in, boots and all,” but they did- not appear to have included their land, which was being defended by the men who were serving overseas.

Tho lit. Hon. G. W. Forbes (National, Hurunui), said that all were agreed that provision should be made for inen who returned from the war and desired to settle on tho land. He hoped machinery could be devised that would dp this without stirring up dissension in the House. The country expected Parliament to be serious and it was its duty! to give a lead. Was the Government going to put soldiers on the land and expect them to pay full value for that land? This should not be done, he contended, and a reduction in price should be made at the start, otherwise soldier settlers would be condemned to the hardships that had been experienced in the past. An attempt should be made to make the Bill an acceptable one, and steps should be taken to ensure that land-owners were called upon to make no undue sacrifice. The Government should also make an effort to allay the alarm which the Bill had created.

Mr C. W. Boswell (Labour, Bay of Islands), said that there was no intention to push the farmer out into the street. He had the word of the Minister that his promise that each farm would be divided into three farms and one left for the farmer in possession would be written into the. regula-

tions. Tories had always fought for land aggregation and against subdivision, and it was significant that under their new leader they were back in the old paths fighting for aggregation. The Government was not going to permit land aggregation to stand in the way of the development of this country. Mr 11. Atuioro (Independent, Nelson), in supporting the Bill, said there was a big argument in favour of the leasehold tenure, but there was no use shutting their eyes to the fact that there was a very deep and abiding desire on the pprt of the farmer to own his land so that he could hand it on to his children. The state could get what it required from the land whether it took it as rent or tax, and if the Government insisted on leasehold only it would put a very potent weapon into the hands of its opponents, because any man on the land would vote for the party that would give him the freehold. Land should be given to soldiers and not sold or rented to them. A soldier worked under conditions that would bring extra wages in civil life and was consequently paying in advance on the land he was defending. Mr F. L. Frost (Labour, New Plymouth), said the Bill was an expression of the Government’s policy of rewarding soldiers for their services. The Government in this measure was setting forward a plan to make men even more secure on the land. It would place them on economic farms. He attacked the Farmers’ Union for its criticism of the Bill, contending that such a type of criticism had certain dangers in it. Mr W. P. Endean (National, Remuera) asked if the Bill were really necessary in view of the great area of land l we had in New Zealand at the present time that Was capable of development. He quoted figures from the Abstract of Statistics allowing that there were some 19,000,000 acres of unoccupied land, and suggested that the Government should have adopted a policy of bringing some of this area into cultivation instead of pursuing its present public works policy. Could not some of the land at present under blackberry and scrub be cleared and brought into production;? he asked. He considered that if this were done it would go a long way to solve the problem, at present facing the* Administration*. Amendment Moved. Mr H. G. Dickie (National, Patea) suggested that as Ministers had tacitly agreed that some of the criticism was sound they should postpone* the legislation to give an opportunity of preparing a new measure. He then moved an. amendinent that the Bill be referred back to the Government for further consideration* for the following reasons: (1) That the Discharged Soldiers’ Settlement Act provides all the powers necessary for the acquisition of land for discharged soldiers • (2) that if additional powers are required those powers should lie taken under an amendment to this* 'Discharged Soldiers’ Settlement Act; (3) that the Small Farms Act was introduced primarily to -provide small holdings and economic work for unemployed men; (4) the Bill empowers the Government to- confiscate land without payment of adequate compensation; (5) that certain lands were granted to_ returned soldiers under the* Discharged Soldiers’ Settlement Act in consideration of special Avar services rendered to Noav Zealand and should, therefore, be excluded from the provision of the Bill; (6) that the Bill confers upon the Minister dictatorial rights and his decisions should be subject to review by a Court of competent jurisdiction; (7) that the special Court the Minister proposed to set up will always be subject to Ministerial control; (8) that the Bill be redrafted to preserve the traditional features of British luav, the right of appeal to a free and independent Court to determine the amount of compensation that is payable to individuals Avhose property is taken under the provisions of the Bill; (9) that the method of assessing compensation should be left on the basis of the existing IaAV. Mr J. A. Roy (National, Clutha) seconded the amendment. The debate was adjourned and the House rose at 11.35 p*.m. until 2.30 p.m. to-morroAV.