LONG DEBATE ENDS

Press, Volume LXXVI, Issue 23191, 30 November 1940, Page 14

LONG DEBATE ENDS

Small Farms Bill Passed BASIC CLAUSES UNALTERED fFrom Our Parliamentary Reporter.] WELLINGTON, November 29. One of the most protracted Parliamentary debates since the outbreak of war, on the Small Farms Amendment Bill, ended in the House of Representatives late this afternoon, when the bill, with one amendment introduced by the Government, was read a third time and passed. The debate lasted four and a half sitting days, and the bill was most strenuously fought, clause by clause, by the Opposition. The bill, which makes provision for the compulsory acquisition ’by the State of land for settling soldiers serving overseas In the present war, was introduced towards the end of the October sitting of the House. The second reading debate was not completed when the House adjourned, and it was resumed when the House met again on Tuesday. Many Government speakers and nearly every member of the Opposition took part in the long second reading debate. . The committee stages, which began late last night, occupied the whole of to-day’s sitting. Urgency was again taken, as had been the case on each of the previous three days and the House sat until 6.20 o’clock this afternoon, nearly an hour beyond the normal rising time on Fridays. Division followed division with monotonous regularity throughout the day as amendments were moved from tne Opposition benches.

Property of Serving Soldiers An amendment introduced by the Minister for Lands (the Hon. F. Langstonc), providing that no land would be taken compulsorily from men m the armed forces overseas, was the only one written into the bill, being carried on thq voices. All the Opposition amendments' were defeated by a substantial margin, the voting being on party lines. The unusually large number of 14 divisions was taken during the day, including one on the third raised by the Opposition during the second reading debate were reflected in the numerous amendments moved to-day. The points on which particular stres§ was laid were the desirability of giving soldiers the option of freehold or leasehold tenure instead of merely leasehold, as provided in the bill; the need for safeguards in connexion with the taking of land, so that the owner would not be unfairly treated' the payment of compensation on a true basis of market value; and the right of appeal to a judge of the Supremo Court instead of to a magistrate. These points gave rise to a series of amendments.

Many Amendments Proposed The principal opposition was shown to the clauses actually empowering the taking of land, and dealing with compensation. Four amendments were moved without success to the clause containing authority for the acquisition of land, an effort being made to revert to the procedure set out under the Land for Settlement Act, 1923. There was a division on the clause itself. Three amendments were moved to the clause relating to compensation. One aimed at allowing a year in which to lodge claims, and another sought to include a different definition for the productive value of land. An effort was also made to insert a provision that compensation should be based on market value. Exception was taken to the clause providing for a magistrate and two assessors to constitute a Compensation Court. It was held that a judge of the Supreme Court should preside, and an amendment was moved accordingly. Mr F. W. Doidge (Opposition Taurangd) said that the fanner would lose his right of access to the Supreme Court if he thought he was not getting a square deal. The Prime Minister (the Rt. Hon. P. Fraser) said the Government would admit frankly that the departure made in this clause was an experiment. If injustice were done he would undertake to alter the method. . The amendment was defeated by 36 votes to 16. A similar amendment moved on the next clause was lost on the voices. After the remaining clauses and the schedules had been approved, the bill was reported back to the House. The Opposition called for a division on the third reading, the Vote resulting in the bill being read a third time by 30 votes to 16. The bill was then passed. TALK OF VIOLENT ACTION PRIME MINISTER’S COMMENT MATTER FOR LAW OFFICERS OF THE CROWN WELLINGTON. November 29. If people, whether members of Parliament or not, talked about violence or threats of violence, then their remarks would be scrutinised by the law officers of the Crown, said the Prime Minister (the Rt. Hon. P. Fraser), when referring during the committee Stages on the Small Farms Amendment Bill in the House of Representatives to-day, to comment on the measure at a meeting in the country. Mr Fraser said people could express themselves quite strongly and pointedly without going over the borderline. Some of the remarks made at meetings in the country had come very near the border-line. In referring to the claim that the Courts should be presided over by judges and not by magistrates, the Prime Minister said the Government had decided on an experiment, and admitted that it was an experiment. It felt that no injustices would be done under the measure. Members of the Supreme Court Bench were not on the tribunals to decide whether men should go overseas and risk their lives, Mr Fraser said, and thus, on the moral issue there was no argument at all about the provisions of the bill. If as a result of the legislation, there were any injustices, he would undertake to alter that. The Government was convinced that the tribunals proposed would do the job better than it had been done previously. Mr W. A. Bodkin (Opposition. Central Otago) said injustice to the farmer could only be proved if the decision could be reviewed in a judicial way. The Crown should not hesitate to risk the judgment of the Supreme Court.