The Dominion TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 1943. THIS LAND MEASURE

Dominion, Volume 36, Issue 306, 21 September 1943, Page 4

The Dominion TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 1943. THIS LAND MEASURE

It, after every broadcast by a Government spokesman, more anti more people come to the conclusion that the Servicemen s Settlement and Land Sales Act is “curiouser and curiouser,” the speakers at any rate need not be surprised. The Minister of Agriculture. Mi. Baiclay, on Thursday night entered on quite a vigorous defence of the measure, during the course of which he contradicted other membeis of his party, and, like them, read into the Act things which clearly are not there. For instance, when explaining how the machineiv of the court and committees would work. Mr. Barclay said that transfers of land from father to son “would never be questioned.” But during the debate in Parliament a Labour member, who represented Timaru, gave as one of the reasons why he supported the Bill the conviction that “intimate family transactions between father and son could be subject to abuse and did at times require surveillance. Though father and son (he said) might not exploit each other, they might exploit the community.” So here we have a Minister commending the legislation because it would never question transfers between father and son and a fellow member of his own party suppoiting it because it would. There was a further conflict of views with regard to the exclusion of an area for the use by the owner of any land compulsorily acquired Mr. Barclay said the Government could take the land “except an economic unit round the homestead.” The Labour candidate for Hawke’s Bay has stated that if the land is owned by a returned soldier Bom the" last war, with sons serving overseas in this struggle, then sufficient land must be left for jather and sons, and only any surplus taken after both father and sons have been provided for. There is nothing in the Act to support this latter view and obviously both speakers’ views cannot be right, but both have been advanced in support of the Act. It was strange to hear the Minister defending the Act because it would not take houses, or one-man farms. Yet when the Bill was first introduced, as Mr. Barclay said in his letter to the Otago Production Council, “the Bill does not exempt from compulsory taking, the property of any person other than a serviceman during his absence overseas.” That was the original intention, and no doubt the real wish of the Government, but the Minister now commends enthusiastically the measure as amended, in spite of the fact that the changes were made only under strong public pressure. At another stage lie stated that even if a man owned 1000 acres of first-class land suitable for subdivision, it would not be taken if it was in full use by the owner. It would be foolish to take such land, he said. But if that is his and the Government’s view, why is it not so stated in the Act. There is no provision to cover such a situation, and in this instance, as in others, it is mere assertion on the part of Mr. Barclay to declare that the farmer in such cases need have no fears. Incidentally, the Minister made no reference to the amazing powers of the proposed committees, with their authority to refuse consent to transfers on. the ground that the land would not be put to the use the committee might consider the best, or the right of the committee to judge the capacity of the prospective purchaser to work the land. And there was no refeience to the fact that, as the Prime Minister said, the experimental nature of the procedure laid down might be fraught with injustice to innocent parties. As an explanation of the Act the Minister’s speech was incomplete and misleading, for Mr. Barclay, like some of his colleagues, unfortunately relied over-much on professions of good intentions rather than on what the Act actually gives the power to do.