POLITICAL POINTS

Evening Star, Issue 23744, 27 November 1940, Page 3

POLITICAL POINTS

SHOPPING HOURS AMENDMENT ABANDONED NEW MEMBER'S BRUSH WITH MINISTER WAR PENSIONS FOR HOME GUARD [From Our Parliamentary Reporter.] WELLINGTON, November 27. Three Government Bills were introduced in the House yesterday. None is likely to cause much discussion.' The Government is pushing on with tho Soldier Settlement Amendment to the Small Farms Settlement Act, though the second reading stage was not completed when the adjournment was taken near midnight. There is to he a finance measure, one clause extending the war pensions system to the Home Guard. Replying to Mr Holland’s question regarding the business, Mr Fraser expressed the opinion that the session could conclude by the end of next week, and then the House would adjourn till February or March, starting a new session.

When the Labour Bills Committee reported to the House recommending that the .Shops and Offices Amendment Bill be not proceeded with this was recognised as a score for Mr Wilkinson (Egmont), who was mainly responsible for organising the strong opposition to this proposal that the Arbitration Court be empowered to fix shopping hours. The committee made this recommendation in view, as it said, of the strong divergence of feeling on the question. It recommended the Government to make a general overhaul of the shops and offices legislation from 1921 onwards with a view to passing a consolidating measure. Mr Wilkinson expressed great satisfaction over the report, adding that 41 county councils had passed resolutions against the Bill. “ Couldn’t you get in touch with the others?” asked Mr Frost, amid Labour members’ laughter. Mr Wilkinson declared that 21 Chambers of Commerce also protested, as well as farmers’ unions. He thought the Minister of Labour had been to some extent misled in introducing this Bill, as even some members of the Labour Party objected to it. Mr Webb (Minister of Labour) admitted that there had been much opposition, though most of the_ grocers’ associations favoured it, while some employers’ associations took the opposite view. He would not push a controversial measure in view of the more or less party truce which prevailed during the war. Labour members: Oh, oh. Mr Richards: Who kept the truce? “ That’s another matter,” replied Mr Webb. „ , The first Parliamentary speech of the now member for Waipaiva, Mr C. G. T. Harker, was a finished effort, worthy of an old Parliamentary hand. He spoke on the Small Farms Settlement Bill, putting critical points with care, speaking clearly, and handling interjections with facility. One of his persistent interrupters was the Minister of Lands, who wished to correct him, but was corrected in turn. The new member’s speech was a strong plea for the freehold in connection with soldier settlement. The absence of this feature from the Government’s Bill was, he considered, its weakest feature, because the soldiers wished to have on their return the security for themselves and families for which they were willing to fight. They should either get the freehold or perpetual right of renewal of their lease. Mr Langstone; ’There is perpetual right of renewal every 33 years. “ But nothing in the Bill to clearly indicate that,” continued Mr Marker, who declared that the Government was not encouraging its declared objective of increased production, because the Bill would check settlement. If the Minister really wished to promote soldier settlement he would discuss tho Bill with the Returned Soldiers’ Association, accepting its recommendations. Mr Langstone; The Returned Soldiers’ Association is in favour. We discussed it on Saturday. Mr Harker retorted that the association favoured certain principles which had the support of the Opposition, but they definitely wanted a discharged soldier settlement- measure, not a mere amendment of another Statute, rusjied through the House. Soldier settlement had been a success, he contended. A good deal had been said of losses, but little attention paid to many successful settlements. Mr Richards; So small you cannot find them. Mr Harker retorted that the critic could see in Waipawa examples which were a credit to returned soldiers. Answering objections to the Small Farms Settlement Bill during the second reading debate, the Prime Ministor discussed the compulsory B purchase, declaring that where it was necessary in the war effort the principle of compulsion must be used, though it would be unnecessary in many instances. If the laud owners came forward with offers compulsion was not needed, because the voluntary method was preferable. Mr Goosman: Has the Government tried it? . , Mr Fraser: “ Yes, during the last three months 27,153 acres were acquired by negotiation.” He reminded the douse that during the whole history of land settlement there had been recognition of compulsory acquisition, but lie added reasuringly: “The man on the small farm doing his best can dismiss any fear from his mind. _ No Government w 7 ould interfere with, him where he is using an adequately-eized farm and not monopolising the land. The Minister of Lands has given instructions that no compulsion shall bo used unless three farms or more can be made available where only one now exists.”

“ But there are none of these safeguards in the Bill,” commented Mr Doidge.