AGAIN UNDER FIRE

Evening Post, Volume CXXX, Issue 129, 27 November 1940, Page 13

AGAIN UNDER FIRE

The Small Farms Bill

Power To Acquire Land

Resuming his speech which was interrupted by the adjournment of the House on October 11, Mr. W. J. Broadfoot (National, Waitomo) reminded the House that there was on the Statute Book a Discharged Soldiers' Settlement Act, which contained all the machinery necessary for placing soldiers on the land. The Minister of Lands had said in his second reading speech that there was nothing new in the Bill. Why should the House be asked to pass another measure? The Minister of Lands (Mr. Langstone): This gives it in a more coordinated form. FOR RETURNED SOLDIERS. Mr. J. G. Barclay (Government, Marsden), said that the Government was putting the Bill through primarily for returned soldiers. The propaganda against the Bill, said Mr. Barclay, was chiefly for the purpose of justifying the propaganda of the Government's political opponents at the last election. NO NEED FOR BILL. There was no necessity for the Bill, as all the legislation necessary for taking land was ali-eady on the Statute Book, said Sir Alfred Ransom (National, Pahiatua). The returned soldiers were being used by the Minister of Lands to socialise the land. As Minister of Lands for a period of six years, said Sir Alfred, he had acquired land and had found that there was adequate legislation to do so. The Bill could have only one primary aimto put into effect the Government's policy of socialisation. The men overseas were fighting for j freedom, but when they returned the Government would not give the^n the freedom of the land they occupied. All they could expect was to occupy land as State tenants. Mr. L. G. Lowry (Government, Otaki) denied that the Government was desirous of dispossessing farmers of their land in order to socialise farming. They were asking for unanimity among all sections of the people and they were expected to set an example. With the .very best intentions the Government had brought down a Bill to help the men who were fighting overseas. MAIDEN SPEECH. The next speaker was Mr. C. G. E. Harker (National, Waipawa), who made his maiden speech. He was warmly applauded. ■< Mr. Harker said that it was because the Opposition desired a comprehensive and effective measure for the settlement of returned soldiers that they opposed the Bill in its present form, which in many respects was a snare and a delusion. The speaker attacked the tenure provisions, which, he declared, violated the very principle of security. Was it any wonder that the Returned Soldiers' Association demanded the right to acquire the freehold? "My objection to the Bill is based on the desire to see a measure that will permanently rehabilitate our returned soldiers-and encourage them to build up security for themselves and their families," said Mr. Harker, who asked whether the Government would be prepared to accept the recommendations of the returned soldiers. The Minister of Lands: The Returned Soldiers' Association is in favour of the Bill. We met them on Saturday. Mr. Harker: They are in favour of certain principles contained in the Bill, but only those principles, together with the right to acquire the freehold. BILE WOULD DO THE JOB. "I have had some experience of branches of the Returned Soldiers' Association," said Mr. E, P. Meachen (Government, Marlborough), "and I understand the Minister himself has had the officials of the Returned Soldiers' Association in his office, that they have discussed the Bill thoroughly, and that the officers of the association went away completely satisfied with everything that was being done." Mr. Poison: t Nonsense. Mr. Meachen: Not only satisfied, but very appreciative of what is being ■ done in this Bill. DIVERSIFICATION OF FARMING. The suggestion that the Government should adopt a new outlook regarding land settlement, and- aim at the diversification of farming, rather than at increasing the production of primary products already being produced in New Zealand was made by Mr. J. A. Lee (Democratic Labour, Grey Lynn). Mr. Lee said that the war was forcing the primary producing countries to manufacture and the manufacturing countries of Europe to enlarge primary production. No one could say whether or not there would be a market for increased production of butter, cheese, and wool after the war. Instead of increasing the number of producers of these commodities, the Government should consider making primary production more diversified. A REASONABLE PRICE. "We are not going to steal from the land owner' —we are going to pay.a price for his land that he can reasonably expect," declared the Minister of Housing (Mr. Armstrong). Mr. Armstrong's opening remarks developed into a verbal scuffle with the previous speaker, the Minister declaring with some emphasis that they did not want members partly condemning the Bill and partly commending it. Mr. Lee: You want yes-men. Mr. Armstrong: We want yes- or nomen. "You want yes?men," repeated Mr. Lee. "We don't want 'twicers,'" said the Minister, at which point Mr. Speaker intervened. The Minister said that the Bill was safeguarded by the fact that it would be administered by a Labour Government for generations to come. SHOULD BE GIVEN CHOICE. The view that the soldier should be able to choose for himself the'kind of tenure he wanted was advanced by the Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates (National, Kaipara). "Let the soldier choose for himself between leasehold and freehold," he said. Enough land should b<j. left to the land owner to enable him to make a living and he should not be denied

The provisions of the Small Farms Amendment Bill were again under a fire of criticism in the House of Representatives yesterday, when the second reading debate was resumed. Urgency was taken for the passage of the Bill, but the House adjourned shortly before midnight, with the debate still uncompleted. Suggestions were made by Opposition speakers that the Government was endeavouring to bring about the socialisation of land, but these were vigorously denied by Government spokesmen, who said that the object of the Bill was to assist returned soldiers and avoid the mistakes made after the last war. The Prime Minister (Mr. Fraser) assured the House that there would be no compulsion unless it proved necessary.

the' highest court in the land when it came to deciding what was sufficient, Mr. Coates continued. The men returning from overseas should be given the best deal possible, but at the same time care should be taken to give a fair deal to the men who were farming the land at present, and who were making >an important contribution to the nation's war effort. COMPULSION \VHEN NEEDED. "Where it is necessary for our war effort, we stand for the principle of compulsion," said the Prime Minister, "but it may not be necessary." :. . Mr. Fraser said that he hoped the whole House was agreed that land for settlement on a sound economic basis should be provided for the soldiers when they returned and that the mistakes of/the past—some of them tragic ones—should be avoided. They were agreed that if compulsion of men and wealth were necessary it should be applied. . Mr. Fraser said that if they did not provide homes for the men when they I'eturned, they would tear down some of the homes that existed. The men would not stand for the slump conditions, the degradation and debt that was experienced after the last war. No Government would fflslurb a man who was not monopolising land. No compulsion would be used, except where three or more farms could be established where there was only one. The case for compulsion was that it would prevent a man from sitting: on land and locking it up when it could support several soldier settlers. Mr. W. A. Bodkin (National, Central Otago) pleaded with the Government not to take away the land owners' right of appeal to the Supreme Court in the event of a price being fixed for their land that they did not consider adequate. The Rev. A. H. Nprdmeyer (Government, Oamaru) said there would have been practically no opposition to the Bill had it not been for the tactics of certain agitators, particularly in the Wellington district; who had been grossly distorting the provisions of the measure and misrepresenting the Government's intentions. J The debate was adjourned.