SMALL FARMS BILL

Evening Post, Volume CXXVIII, Issue 72, 22 September 1939, Page 13

SMALL FARMS BILL

SETTLERS' RIGHTS

ACQUISITION OF FREEHOLD

OPPOSITION PROTEST

A strong protest against the elimination of the rights of settlers on small farms to obtain the freehold of their properties was voiced by Mr. A. •N. Grigg" (National. Mid-Canterbury) in the House of Representatives yesterday afternoon, when the Small Farms Amendment Bill was "nder discussion. Mr. Grigg said the right to the freehold was one of the privileges held by a democratic people and it was a principle thai, should be closely guarded. The principle had been firmly established in New Zealand, and a Government required good reason before taking away rights that had been given to the people by its predecessors. The Minister of Lands (the Hon. F. Langstone) had offered the excuse that the occupiers of small farms were not exercising their right to acquire the freehold. This was not a sound argument. Because people were not acquiring the freehold today, it could not be said that they would not desire to own the farms at some time in the {future. Their right to exercise thenprivilege when it best suited them to do so should not be taken away. Beneath the surface of the statements that had been made by the Minister could be detected the Government's policy. Freehold was to be eliminated. The principle was seen in the State housing scheme, under which the people were being ■ provided with I houses, but not with homes. Unless the people owned their houses they could not regard them as their homes. The people would not and could not own their homes under the system introduced by the Government, and the same principle was being steadily extended to the small farms. STERLING ASSETS. "Primary produce is the only commodity that can be converted into sterling assets," said ■ Mr. J. N. Massey (National, Franklin), in supporting Mr. Grigg. "It is essential to encourage an increase in primary production, and that can best be done by placing no unnecessary restriction on the rights of the people willing to farm the land." Mr. Massey added that by the ultimatum issued by the Minister of Lands the settlers were expected to sign leases or walk off their property. The settlers were within their rights in asking, that they should have the same privileges as other people, and in asking for more security of tenure than that offered to them by the Minister. The House had been informed that public money had been used to develop the small farms, but the people who took up the land did so on the definite understanding that money used out of the Unemployment Fund would not be a charge against the farms. Under the previous Administration £250,000 had been utilised in two years in developing the small-farm scheme. This money was provided out of the Unemployment Fund and the policy then in operation had proved highly successful. But, because this money had been derived by taxation, the Minister was denying the settlers rights that were enjoyed by other sections of the community. It could not be held that the Minister had put forward a convincing argument in support of his encroachment on the rights of individuals. CLOSER SETTLEMENT. Mr. H. G. Dickie (National, Patea) urged the Minister of Lands to acquire properties for closer settlement, as farms would be required for returned men in the event of the war continuing and New Zealand sending troops overseas. The House was reminded by Mr. H. S. S. Kyle (National, Riccarton) that the freehold policy had been decided upon in 1912, when the Rt. Hon. W. F. Massey came into power. Would the Government make a fight of it at the next election? The Minister of Lands: The fighting cock. Mr, Kyle: The hon. gentleman should know that cock fighting is not allowed in this country. The men who had taken up the small farms should be allowed to acquire the freehold, added Mr. Kyle. A promise had been given by the previous Government, and it should be honoured. The. Labour Government acted as a lightning change artist in respect to land tenures. A few years ago Labour leaders advocated the "usehold" tenure, while today the leasehold was the policy being put into operation. By the time the next election came along it might be found that the Government was in favour of the freehold. It would depend upon the measure of the votes in the country electorates. The member for Kaiapoi (Mr. C. M. Williams) had advocated the collective system of farming, while at One Labour conference the present Minister of Lands had brought down a report advocating the Russian system of farming. The Minister.' No such thing. OPTION TO PURCHASE. An undertaking to withdraw objection to the measure if the rights of those settlers in possession when the previous Government was In office were protected, waa given by the Leader of the Opposition (the Hon. A. Hamilton). He said that although the question of freehold or leasehold tenure could be debated at length, the real point at issue from the Opposition's viewpoint was that the option to purchase the land should be retained to those who were in possession at the end of 1935. "The policy of the Government must be determined by the Government itself,' said Mr. Hamilton, "and although we stand lot the option of the freehold, we are not altogether against the leasehold for anybody who wants it. But we have a grievance." The Minister of Lands: An imaginary grievance. Mr. Hamilton: No. There is a distinct grievance. To an interjection by Mr. A. G. Osborne (Government, Onehunga), Mr. Hamilton siaid he would guarantee that Mr. Osborne did not tell the smallfarm settlers before the last election that the Government intended to take away their right to the freehold. Mr. Langstone: Members of your party said that over and over again. Long befor■ the election the settlers had been advised that they ware to have a thirty-three years' leasehold tenure, the Minister added. Mr. Hamilton said that the Minister could have leasehold tenure for all those who had taken up land when his Government took office. Evidently he was afraid that some of the settlers would choose freehold tenure. Mr. J. Thorn (Government, Thames): Instead of being freehold it would be mortgage-hold. Mr. Hamilton: That is very discreditable to the success which has been achieved in land development in New