SMALL FARMS BILL

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 61, Issue 42, 29 November 1940, Page 3

SMALL FARMS BILL

DEFEAT OF THE AMENDMENT.

MINISTER REPLIES TO CRITICS.

(Per Press Association)

WELLINGTON, November 28

In the House of Representatives today urgency was granted for the Small Farms Act Amendment Bill.

Continuing the debate, Mr J. A. Roy (National, Clutha) said it had been suggested in the course of the debate that land should be given to the soldier free, but he reminded the House that when the men came back from the last war they did not want charity of any kind. All they wanted was a fair chance. If it was proposed to give free land, why not also give free grocery businesses to grocers, free practices to lawyers, etc. P

Mr J. A. Lee: Set them up free of debt.

Mr Roy agreed that there should not be a debt stranglehold on the returned soldier.

Mr T. 1). Burnett (National, Temuka) said that changed conditions had altered the whole aspect of land settlement, and any scheme was made difficult to-day by high costs. When a farm was cut in two the cost of machinery for working it as well as buildings was doubled., The whole question of land settlement was one that required careful study, and he considered that men on both sides of the House should have gone into the question of farming a land settlement scheme before the legislation was introduced. ...

The Hon. J. G. Cobbe (National, Manawatu) said the Bill gave the Minister power to ruin any farmer in the Dominion. , Farmers were willing and ready to do what was fair for returned soldiers, but the man on the land was entitled to and should get a fair deal, a'nd that was all the Opposition was asking. The Bill seemed to him to be an underhand effort by the Government to socialise land, and he suggested that the Government should drop the measure and introduce another Bill which would be an honest attempt to do what was fair both for the soldier and the farmer.

At this stage the amendment moved to the second reading the previous evening by Mr H. G. Dickie (National, Patea) was put to the House and defeated on a division by 41 vqtes to 19. The Hon. Sir Apirana Ngata (National, Eastern Maori) suggested that proper provision should be made for native returned soldiers on lands administered under the ‘ native land schemes. Opposition’s Viewpoint. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr S. G. Holland) said he had delayed mak-

ing his speech on the Bill until the present time because, after listening to the Prime Minister’s speech the other evening, he believed the Government would have postponed consideration of the measure. Mr Fraser, in his speech, had indicated plainly that there were a number of items in the Bill which required amplification. Mr Holland said that in his first speech this week in the House as the newlyappointed Leader of the Opposition, he said his party would support good Bills, strengthen weak ones and oppose bad ones. He thought the present measure was a mixture of the last two. It was a mixture of weakness and badness. There had been nothing that had happened in the House for a long time that had so disturbed the farming community as the present Bill. Tjhe Opposition had received protests about it from all over the country and from all shades of political opinion. The Bill, although it was intended to rehabilitate returned soldiers, did not satisfy the Returned Soldiers’ Association. This was not a time for introducing legislation having to do with soldiers that was likely to divide the people. This was not a time for organising party politics. Government voices: Hear, hear.

Mr Holland: “I’m glad Government members agree with that statement.” He added that the Government. party had apparently not agreed with it in the Waipawa by-election contest. When the Minister had introduced the Bill, said Mr Holland, he had said there was nothing original in the Bill, and all its provisions were included in other legislation, yet it gave the Government a new method of acquiring land. Much criticism had been levelled at farmers. The moment a group of farmers got together to express opinions upon their own afFairs they were charged with bias and partisanship. The farmer wasi entitled to his views and should not be sneered at.

Mr 'if raser: Nobody has sneered at farmers.

Mr Holland: There has been something akin to it in this Rebate. Although the Minister of Lands had said there was nothing new in the measure, it contained power to take the whole of anybody’s farm, and Mr Holland said lie was not prepared to assist in passing legislation of the onesided character of the Bill. It cancelled all the present safeguards. The Opposition would fight for the right of the returned soldier to become the owner of his farm.

Mr H. H. &. Kyle (National, Riccarton), contended that the Bill cancelled out many privileges which returned soldiers had had in the last war. In spite of what had been said in the past, he continued, land iov soldier settlers of the last wan had been taken over at its productive value. Minister Replies. The Hon. F. Langstone, in reply, said that the arguments against the Bill had not shown up its weakness but the weakness of those who criticised the measure. It was our job to prepare the land here and now for the soldiers when they came back. All discussion on the Bill had been on the wrong foot. The Bill had nothing to do with the Land for Settlement Act or the Public Works Act. It took existing clauses from these acts and included them in one measure. The Leader of the Opposition had accused him of being misleading when he had said

the Bill was for the settlement of returned soldiers. All Mr Holland needed to do was to read the preamble of the Bill which definitely had specifically mentioned it was for # the settlement of discharged soldiers.

Mr W. J. Poison: The Bill does ehabo the Minister to take land for other than discharged soldiers. Mr Langstone: Yes. Certainly, but discharged soldiers will be given preference if there is land idle alter soldiers are settled.

Mr Langstone accused tlio Opposition of trying to stir up political strife and hatred and with feeding them on imaginary wrongs and grievances. Referring to land purchases, he said there had not been a compulsory purchase in the last 30 to 35 years simply because court awards were always given against the Laiids Department which was afraid to go into court in such cases. Maori Soldiers. Dealing with the settlement of Maori returned soldiers, the Minister said that these men would be treated on exactly the as pakehas. The Maori soldier of New Zealand, he said, had not gone away only to fight for the Maoris and he was entitled to the same rights as the pakeha. When he had met the returned soldiers’ representatives recently they had asked for the freehold and when he told them that the basis of tenure would be the 33 years renewable leasehold, they had appeared to be satisfied.. He had also given them an assurance that farms would not be taken away from returned sodiers of the last wax’ and that the land would be settled c|n a true economic basis. The Bill set out in faii’ly lucid form ways and means by which land,could be acquired and that it was to be for returned soldier settlement. That was the purpose of the Bill. No land would be taken away compulsorily from soldiers away fighting or from those who had sons away. If a men wanted to offer his land that was a different thing. No land would be taken if it were not suitable for three additional settlers. Surely these safeguards would do away with a lot of fears and bogies that had been raised against “taking any land anywhei’e.” The passing of the second reading was forced to a division b,y the Opposition and was carried by 41 votes to 19.

The House then proceeded with the discussion of the short title in committee.

The short title was carried by 35 votes to 141 Progress was reported and the House rose until 10.30 a.m. tomorrow, when the remaining clauses of the Bill will be considei'ed in committee.