SOLDIER- SETTLEMENT

Evening Star, Issue 23744, 27 November 1940, Page 2

SOLDIER- SETTLEMENT

COHTRSVEnm SKALL FARMS MEASURE STEBHG CPPSSiTISN ENCOUNTERED vt [Pen United Pi;ess Association. 1 WELLINGTON, November 2G. After n six weeks’ recess the House resumed to-day at 2.30 p.m. The Prime Minister moved for and obtained urgency when continuation of tho second reading of the Small Farms Amendment Bill, which was adjourned when the House rose in October, was reached on tho Order Paper. Resuming his speech in the second reading debate, which was interrupted by the adjournment on October 11, Mr Broadfoot reminded the House that there was on the Statute Book the Discharged Soldiers’ Settlement Act, which contained all the machinery, necessary for placing soldiers on the land. In tho present Bill there were some undesirable aspects, and it was possible that the “ eyes might be picked out ” of a person’s land without compensation being paid. Although there was power under the Bill to take land for the returned soldiers, there was no mention of the conditions under which the land should be made available. The Bill was not warranted at present, and ho was surprised that urgency had been claimed for it.

Mr Barclay said the Government was putting the Bill through primarily for the returned soldiers, and the propaganda against the Bill was chiefly for the purpose of justifying tho propaganda of tho Government’s political opponents at the last election. Before last election the Opposition had said that if tho Labour Party were returned to power it would take the land away from the farmers, and with their propaganda to-day they were trying to tell the farmers “ I told you so.” Tho Government had not taken tho land from the farmers, and had no intention of taking land from any farmer who was farming tho laud and making use of it as he should. Working farmers wero not opposed to the Bill, because they knew it was not aimed at them. They knew tho Government would provide land for their soldier sons. SOCIALISTIC MOVE. Sir A. Hansom said the returned soldiers were being used by tho Minister of Lands to socialise the land. The Bill could have only one primary aim—namely, to put into effect tho Government’s policy of socialisation. Under the Bill it would be possible to take land from soldiers who had already been settled. He did not suggest that the Government had any intention of doing that, but tho power was there. The men overseas were, fighting for freedom, but when they returned tho Government ■would not give them the freedom of the land they occupied. All they could expect -was to occupy the land as State tenants. The settlement of ex-soldiers on the land was merely a blind, ho said, and was unquestionably being used for socialisation of the land, otherwise there was no necessity for tho Bill. A GENUINE EFFORT. Mr Lowry asked if it were reasonable to suppose the Government would .dispossess fanners of their land and replace them with others. (Both parties wero asking for unanimity from the people during the war period, and the House should set an example. He wanted to support tho Minister and to congratulate him on the Bill, which was a genuine attempt to make provision for those defending our shores so that on their return, if they so desired, they could take part in farming. Wc should make provision for these men now, and have decent land available for them on their return. He was sure the returned soldiers _as a body would be satisfied with this Bill. SECURITY VIOLATED. Mr Marker, the new member for Waipawa, who was making his maiden speech, declared 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. The tenure provisions in tho Bill violated every principle of security. Was it any wonder tho Returned Soldiers’ Association had demanded the right to acquire tho freehold? The returned soldiers wanted a special Bill about which they could he heard, and which should not bo rushed through the House in the dying stages of the session. It was only by giving the right to the freehold that the main principles of land settlement could bo achieved. Ho suggested that tho measure should ho replaced by an amendment to the Discharged Soldiers’ Settlement Act, and that the Returned Soldiers’ Association and other interested parties should have an opportunity to examine it thoroughly. Mr Meachen said he did not care what title was given the Bill—all ho wanted was to see tho job done, and he was satisfied the Bill would do that job. MR LEE’S SUGGESTION. Mr Leo suggested that the Government should adopt a new outlook regarding land settlement, and aim at diversification of farming rather than increasing production. No one could' say whether or not there would be a market for increased production of butter, cheese, and wool after the war. Dealing with tho question of land for settlement, Mr Lee said many landowners had more land than they could use efficiently, and he suggested that the Government might ask for offers of surplus land in exchange for a mortgage arrangement that would allow" the farmer to free tho rest of ins land from debt over a period of years. Ho believed if this were done that all the land required would be secured.

REASONABLE PRICE PROMISED. Tho Minister of Housing (Mr Armstrong) said the Government was trying to avoid tho mistakes of the past, and was making provision in this Bill to do the right thing for tho soldiers. A reasonable price would be paid for land, and he contended that the principle underlying opposition to the Bill was tho “God-given right of the landowner to hold out against any Government until ho he received the price he thought his land was worth.” Mr Lee. lie said, had partly supported tho Bill and partly condemned it, but the Government did not want partial support. Mr Lee: You want “ ) es-mpii.” Mr Armstrong: Wo want “ Yes ” or “ No ” men.

Replying to Opposition criticism that the men settled under the Bill would have no security of tenure, the Minis-ter-said their safeguard would_ ho that tho legislation would be administered by a Labour Government for generations to come. The last time, he said, the soldier settlement scheme was prepared hurriedly, but this time the Government was preparing early so that

the best possible system for putting the returned men on the land might be devised. FREEHOLD OPTION DESIRABLE. Mr Coates expressed the opinion that the settlers should have the option of freehold or leasehold, and he asked the Prime Minister and the Minister of Lands to reconsider the substitution of a magistrate by a judge of the Supreme Court, and also tho question of leaving enough land for the original farmer to make a reasonable living. Let tho men who came back get the best deal possible, but at the same time give a fair deal to tho men who farmed the land and were making a material contribution to our security. NO MORE MISTAKES. Mr Fraser said he hoped all members agreed that ample provision should be made for laud settlement on a sound economic basis for the soldiers who returned, and that the mistakes of the past, some of them tragic, should be avoided. The men who came back would not stand for similar mistakes as those made in the past, when there were not even enough houses for those who wished to settle down. Tho Government had to make preparations now for the settlement of tho rtien who would return, and in this direction had to watch all contingencies which /might arise. It did not want to repeat the mistakes of the past. Ho did not wish to begin any recriminations, but rather we should learn from our past mistakes. Jf the returned men wished to settle on the land, we must make provision for them to do so. Reference had been made to tho efforts of the farmers in the war. but ho would Also point to the similar efforts by other sections of tho community. We were all interdependent, and each relied on the efforts of others. Where it was necessary for tho war effort, he said, the Government stood for compulsion being used. This might not bo necessary. Some members had said that the landholders would come forward and offer land for settlement. If this were so, then lot them come forward. If land could be obtained through people coming forward and offering it or by negotiation and purchase, then this would be the best method, but this method had not been adequate. If it could be shown that it wore'adequate, then so much the bettor. *

Dir Fraser gave an assurance that no compulsion would be used except when three or more farmers could bo established where there was one at the present time. The case for compulsion was that no individual should be allowed to sit on the land and lock it up and stand in the way of the soldier settlors.

Mr Bodkin made a strong appeal for tho right of landowners to take their appeals to the Supreme Court. All recognised that compulsion had to be written into the law, he said, but it had to bo accompanied by safeguards. Whatever Government were in office, the pressure of public opinion would be so great that it would have to find laud for the soldiers, but in the process of getting the land let it see that no injustice was done to individuals. Air Nordmeycr said there would have been no opposition to the Bill if it bad not been for the activities of -paid agitators who toured the country and had been active, especially in Wellington province, endeavouring to stir up political animosity on the part of the farming community. The debate was then interrupted, and the House rose at 11.46 p.m.