SMALL FARMS BILL

Evening Post, Volume CXXX, Issue 130, 28 November 1940, Page 6

SMALL FARMS BILL

Opposition Challenge

NINE-POINT AMENDMENT

The Opposition's challenge to the Small Farms Amendment Bill was strongly sustained in the House of Representatives yesterday, and when the House adjourned at 11.40 p.m., the second reading debate was still unfinished. The Opposition's attitude was crystallised in an'amendment moved by Mr. H. G. Dickie (National, Patea) shortly before the adjournment. It presented nine reasons why the Bill should; lie referred back to the Government for consideration, and it will give all members of the Opposition a further opportunity to speak against it. Speakers from the Government side were chiefly from the_back benches.

be withdrawn and replaced by an Act that would give full safeguards to the land owners was made by Mr. E. B. K. Gordon (National, Rangitikei). The Government could hot secure fullydeveloped land at an economical figure and a close watch on the economic situation would lead to undeveloped and partially-improved land being brought. into production. That would be a' good thing.

Mr. P. K. Paikea (Government, Northern Maori) said that as soldiers were already returning he was surprised^© hear a member suggest that the legislation should be delayed further. He appealed to the Government to include the Maoris in any settlement scheme. Where land near Maori settlements was being, cut up Maori returned soldiers should be given preference. . ,;■■■ '-^ ■ /'/' ' -;: PROVISION FOR SOLDIERS. A vigorous attack on the Bill was made by Mr." W. S. Goosman (National, Waikato). He asked what the men who were now away on foreign service would think when they returned to find that their freedom and liberty''had been taken away under the provisions of the Bill. Anything in the.nature of compulsion was repulsive !to the people. The Minister of Lands had said when introducing the Bill that it was for the benefit of the soldiers, but all the soldier received under the legislation was preference. Land values had risen because there had been too much flo. titious: riibney issued by the Government and the people were looking for an avenue to invest it. Until the Government ceased its inflationary trends land values would keep on rising.

POLITICAL DYNAMITE. The Bill was described by Mr. F. W. Doidge/ (National, Tauranga) as being heavily-laden with political dynamite. It was in the truest sense a land mine. There were two vital principles in the Bill; first it took away the right of freehold and secondly it denied access to the highest courts of the land. It. sought to wipe out the freehold system and make possible political executives overriding the Judiciary. ;The Bill" Humbugged' the people, because although the Minister of Lands had said there was no hidden purpose behind it, he had stealthily engineered in its provisions the policy of complete socialisation. "If the Prime Minister and the Minister in charge of the Bill really want us to get down to a concerted effort in the House, and in the country," added Mr. Doidge, "then quit this stealthy scheme to socialise New Zealand* under the cloak of the war effort. Let us follow the example of "Winston Churchill and take the bitterness out of politics in New Zealand." "NO CONFISCATION." There was no confiscation about the Bill, said Mr.. W. D.: Coleman (Government, Gisboime). The land' required for soldier settlers was to be bought at a fair price. The price paid. for land for soldier settlement after the last war had been too high, and the result had been that many soldiers; had walked off their holdings and the value of the land had been written down.. Those who sold the land got their money but of the £21,000,000 paid lor land over £ 12,000,000 had been written off.

A suggestion that the soldiers who were placed on the land should not be asked to pay the full price at which it was acquired by the Government when they first went on was made by the Rt. Hon. G, W. Forbes (National, Hurunui). . His contention was that any writing-off should be done at the start and not after the occupier had got into difficulties, as had been done last time. "What we all want to see is a satisfactory scheme of settlement, and soldiers placed on the land so that they have some chance of making good" he said. "You are going to put soldiers on the land. Are you going to expect them to pay the full cost of that land and later on put them off it? There 4s nothing generous in that. A.-reduction in the cost should be TP^cie a+ the start."

NO HARM IN FREEHOLD. Suggesting that: returned soldiers should have land given to them as a reward for their services, Mr. H. Atmore (Independent, Nelson) advised the Government io provide an alternative tenure. There were good arguments in favour of leasehold, but they should not shut their eyes to the fact that there was a very deep and abiding desire on the part of the farmer to own his land so that he could hand it on to his children. j If the Government insisted on leasehold only, said Mr., Atmore, it would put into the hands of its opponents a very potent weapon—a weapon that had been used in the past. Any] man on the land would vote for the party that would give him freehold. | The Government should not blame the! freehold for what was really a fault in our monetary system.

■ The suggested action of the farmers was bordering on subversion and might lead to dangerous conditions in the country, said Mr. F. L. Frost (Government, New Plymouth), who criticised

the Farmers' Union for organising i meetings of protest, and. the Press for giving these meetings what he termed "willing" publicity. It was time the Government took some action to stop what had been going on, and the'Farm-.i ers' Union should be declared a poli-l tical organisation. Mr. Frost read the headings of a report of one of these meetings from "The Post," and was going on to comment on the way the report had been presented to readers when he was checked by Mr. Speaker. RIGHT TO APPEAL. Mr. W. P. Endean (National, Remuera) criticised the clauses in the Bill that altered the appeal procedure. Members of the National Reserve and Home Guard should be included in those Who were given an opportunity to go on to.the land. No one wanted to interrupt the 'Government ,in its

endeavours to ;pi*ovide land for soldiers who wanted' farms, but it was the duty of tne Government to hold

The suggestion that the Bill should the scales of justice evenly between both parties. The men who fought for the land had a certain inherent right to a portion of that land if they wanted it, said Mr. F. W. Schramm (Government, Auckland East).

He did not agree with the principle that allowed a Minister to make a decision and then act as adjudicator in a dispute on the matter, but the Bill was a wartime measure. He hoped that it would not be taken as a precedent for future legislation. He believed that the Minister would deal with all cases with judicial fairness, and he appealed to him to hear all the evidence before making a decision in any case. AMENDMENT MOVED. Mr. H. G. Dickie (National, Patea) said the measure should be postponed so that a better one could be drafted. He moved that the Bill should be referred back to the Government for consideration on the following grounds: 1. That the Discharged Soldiers' Settlement Act provides all the powers necessary for the acquisition of land for discharged soldiers. 2. That if additional powers are required,, those powers should be taken under an amendment to the Discharged Soldiers' Settlement Act. 3. That the Small Farms Act was introduced primarily to provide small holdings and economic work for unemployed men.

4. That the Bill empowers the Government to confiscate land without paying adequate compensation. 5. That certain lands were granted to returned soldiers under the Discharged Soldiers' Settlement Act in consideration of special war services rendered to New Zealand and should therefore be excluded from the provisions of the Bill. 6. That the Bill confers upon the Minister dictatorial rights and his decisions should be subject to review by a Court of competent jurisdiction. 7. That the special Court the Minister proposes to set up will always be subject to Ministerial control. 8. That the Bill should be redrafted so as to preserve the traditional features of British law, namely, the right of appeal to a free and , independent Court to determine the amount of compensation that is payable to individuals whose property is taken under the provisions of the Bill. 9. That the method of assessing compensation -should be left on the basis of existing law. Mr. J. A. McL. Roy (National, Clutha) seconded the amendment, and later moved the adjournment of the debate.