"REFER BACK."

Auckland Star, Volume LXXI, Issue 283, 28 November 1940, Page 9

"REFER BACK."

OPPOSITION MOVE. SMALL FARMS BILL. "AMEND THE EXISTING ACT." (0.C.) WELLINGTON, this day. A suggestion that soldiers who were placed on land should not be asked to pay the full price at which it was acquired by the Government when they first took up farming was made by Mr. Forbes (National. Hurunui), when discussing the Small Farms Amendment Bill in the House of Representatives last evening. Mr. Follies' contention was that any writing-off should be done at the start and not after the occupier had got into difficulties, as had been done last time. They should take some notice of the mistakes that had been made in the past, he said, and a systematic effort should be made to meet the desires of the men coming back. It was necessary to acquire land, and if it could not be bought then it should be taken under the compulsory clause of the Act. "What we all want to see," he said, "is a satisfactory scheme of settlement and soldiers placed on the land so that they have some chance of making good. You are going to put soldiers on the land. Are you going to expect them to pay the full cost of that land and later on put them off it? There is nothing generous in that. A reduction in the cost should be made at the start.'' The Government, added Mr. Forbes, should try to make the bill acceptable. It should recognise that the men who own the land were not called upon to make an undue sacrifice and should allay the alarm that existed in the minds of many farmers suggesting that returned soldiers should have land given to them as a reward for their services. "Land Should Be Given." Mr. Atinore (Independent, Nelson) advised the Government to provide an alternative tenure. There were good arguments in favour of leasehold, but they should not shut their eyes to the fact that there was a very deep and abiding desire on the part of the farmer to own his land, so that he could hand it 011 to his children. The State could get what is required from the land whether it took it as rent or taxation. In proposing that land should be given to soldiers and not sold or rented to them, Mr. Atmore said that men at the front worked under conditions that would bring extra wages in civil life, but because they were in uniform they were working for less. They were, therefore, paying in advance for the laud they were now defending and would later occupy. Stating that the suggested action of farmers was bordering on subversion and might lead to dangerous conditions in the country, Mr. Frost (Government, New Plymouth) criticised the Farmers' Union for organising meetings of protest. He thought the Farmers' Uniov should be declared a political organisation. National Reserve and Home Guard. Mr. Endean (National, Remueia) criticised the clauses in the bill that altered the appeal procedure. He said that soldiers deserved every consideration and expressed the opinion that members of the National Reserve and Home Guard should be included in those who were given the opportunity to go on the land. No one wanted to interrupt the Government in its endeavours to provide land for soldiers who wanted farms, but it was the duty of the Government to hold the scales of justice even between both parties to the land settlement scheme and he considered that the terms of the bill were hard on landowners. The men who fought for the land had a certain inherent right to a portion of that land if they wanted it, said Mr. Schramm (Government, Auckland East).

Any country that failed to provide land for its citizens would become impoverished. The Maoris had realised the value of the land and had fought for it and any man who would not fight for the land was not entitled to consideration. It was only by close settlement on small but adequate holdings that the people of New Zealand could be happy. He did not ajrree with the principle that allowed a Minister to make a decision and then act as the adjudicator in a dispute on the matter, but the bill was a war-time measure. He hoped that it would not be taken as a precedent for future legislation. He believed that the Minister would deal with all cases with judicial fairnes«. and he appealed to him to hear all evidence before making a decision in any case. Better Bill Called For. The claim that the Minister had tacitly ajrrecd that some of the criticism levelled at the bill was sound was made by Mr. Dickie (Nataional. Patca), who said that the measure should be postponed so that a better bill could be drafted. He moved that the hill be referred back to the Government for consideration on the following STOUnds: 1. That the Discharged Soldiers Settlement Act provides all the powers necessary for the acquisition of land for di*=fhargcd soldiers. 2. That if additional powers are required those powers should be taken under an amendment to the Discharged Soldiers Settlement Act. 3. That the Small Farms Act was introduced primarily to provide small holdings and economic work for unemployed men. 4. That the bill empowers the Government to confiscate land without paying adequate compensation. 5. That certain lands were granted to returned soldiers under the Discharged Soldiers Settlement Act in consideration of s[>ccial war services rendered to Now Zealand and should therefore be excluded from the provisions of the bill. 6. That the bill confers upon the Minister dictatorial rights and his decisions should Ibe subject to review by a court of competent jurisdiction 7. That the special court the Minister proposes to set up will always be subject to Ministerial control. 8. That the bill should he redrafted so as to preserve the traditional features of the British law, namely the right of appeal to a free .and independent court to determine the amount of compensation that is payable to individuals whose property is taken under the proi isions of the bill. 9. That the method of assessing compensation should be left on the basis of the existing law. Mr. Rov (National, Clutha) seconded the amendment. 1 ® At 11.38 p.m. the debate was adjourned.