THE PROPER COURSE

Dominion, Volume 36, Issue 270, 10 August 1943, Page 4

THE PROPER COURSE

Thq Government has followed the proper course in placing its proposals with regard to the future purchase of land before Parliament and people, but it cannot be said that there is any urgency for the passing of the measure. The departmental attitude is indicated in the recent report made by the Land Purchase Controller, for the Land Settlement Board, which said: “There appeared to be no point in purchasing grassed land which, owing to the shortage of manure,. might depreciate in value while being farmed by the department pending the provision of labour and materials required for the additional dwellings, sheds, fencing, wate'r supplies, etc., necessary for closer subdivision. That being so the matter could well be referred to the electors for thenjudgment, and a frank debate in Parliament would serve to make the issues clear. . . . So many interests will be directly affected that hurried decisions in a matter such as this must create grave injustices. The Minister of Lands, when he explained the provisions of the Bill,-claimed that it had, in principle, the support of the Farmers’ Union, the Chambers of Commerce and other organizations, but they have hastened to deny the statement, protesting that they had no knowledge of what the measure contained until it was brought down. Reasonable time must be afforded all likely to be affected to study the proposals, and as it is not intended to embark at once on a programme of State purchases the opportunity is afforded, and should be taken, to let the peop c express their opinion at the coming election. That, too, would be tie proper course. . , . , , It could not be contended that the Government had any-mandate for legislation of this kind, for the circumstances in 1938, when the last elections were held, did not call for consideration of anything in the form of post-war reconstruction. Today they do, and this bill represents the line of approach favoured by the Government. As such it is fitting that it should be placed before the people, but as a proposal —not as an accomplished fact. It will be remembered that when, last March Mr. Churchill broadcast to the British people on post-war developments, he said: “When this plan has been shaped it will have to be presented to the country.” Commenting on the speech, the Labour newspaper published in London, the Daily Herald, said: Legislation cannot, take place without Parliamentary discussion. And Parliamentary discussion cannot be effective unless it is inspired by public opinion. No one could claim that there has been time for public opinion to.be focused, as it should be, on these revolutionary proposals. The coming elections at least afford an opportunity to follow the course Mr. Churchill said was essential, the preparation of plans and their submission to the electorate. The British leader did say that it should •be done by a National Government, and if that cannot be done here the responsibility rests entirely with the present Administration. The opportunity hasbeeii taken to bring down this section of what may be termed post-war legislation and, instead of being hurriedly passed in the last few days of a dying Parliament, it should be referred direct to the people. That would be the democratic course.