SOLDIER SETTLEMENT

Evening Star, Issue 23745, 28 November 1940, Page 4

SOLDIER SETTLEMENT

FURTHER OPPOSITION TO BILL " STALKING HORSE FOR SOCIALISM " [Per United Press Association.] WELLINGTON, November 27. Continuing tbe second reading debate on the Small Farms Amendment (Soldier Settlement) Bill, Mr Gordon said the fact that Government speakers had given assurances that certain clauses of the Bill would not be taken advantage of proved that there were loopholes of which advantage could bo taken if required. If it was not the Government’s intention to take land under certain conditions, that should be written into the Bill, for under the Bill now before the House the Government could plainly take any land it chose.

Mr Paikea said that many of the criticisms of the Bill had been made from the point of view of those remaining in New Zealand, instead of those going overseas. There was every need to make provision for soldiers’ rehabilitation today, not later. Already some men hat. been invalided home, and wo did not know when more might return. He hoped the psychology of the _ previous Act and its administration woud not be reintroduced, and that pakcha and Maori returned men would have equal opportunities of making satisfactory land selections. He also asked the Minister to ensure that, where blocks of land adjacent to Maori communities were cut up, preference bo given to Maori men, if possible, in order to settle them among their own people. Mr Goosman declared that assurances such as had been given by Mr Fraser that land would not be taken over unless at least three soldiers could be established on it should be written into the Bill if they were not merely an afterthought inspired by the widespread opposition to the measure which had been evident in many quarters. What the fanners objected to was that under the Bill the Government was taking the right to appropriate all land without safeguard to the present holders against total dispossession, as in the existing Lands For Settlement Act. Moreover, though there was still much land in New Zealand to be broken in, it was doubtful if the owners would undertake improvements if there were the risk of the Government taking their land mnee they raised it to a certain level of development. He urged a special Bill providing for the rehabilitation of soldiers, not only on the laud, but in all walks of life. _ . . , Mr Robertson said Opposition speakers had asked for safeguards for landowners, but what about safeguards for the soldier settlers? The purpose of the Bill could only be what it purported to be—namely, to provide the machinery for establishing the right of the returned men to share in the land for the defence of which they were at present overseas. If one went closely into the provisions of the Bill it would be seen how futile were the Opposition criticisms of it.

LAND MINE. Mr Doidge characterised the Bill as a “ land mine.” It looked innocent enough on the surface, but it wasn’t all it appeared to be. It took away the right of the freehold, and denied access of appeal to the highest court in the land. 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 a policy of complete socialisation. There was nothing in it about the soldier settler, who was simply being made the stalking horse to take away the freehold. Confiscation was stamped over every' clause and every feature of the measure. If tho Prime Minister and tho Minister in charge of the Bill really wanted to get down to a concerted effort in the House, let them quit this stealthy scheme to socialise New Zealand under the cloak of war effort. Let them follow the example of Winston Churchill, and they would take the bitterness out of politics in New Zealand. Mr Coleman said there was no confiscation about the Bill. The land required for soldiers was to be bought at a fair price. What more could anyone ask? Those who were loudest in their agitation against the Bill hadl been the loudest in agitating for the conscription of men. They had said: “ All inboots and all,” but they did not appear to have included their land, which was being defended by the men who were serving overseas. PRICE REDUCTION FOR SERVICE. Mr Forbes said that all were agreed that provision should be made for the men who returned from the war and desired to settle on the land, and ho hoped the machinery could ho devised that would do this without stirring up dissension in the House, The country expected Parliament to be serious, and it was its duty to give a lead. Was the Government, he asked, going to put the soldiers on the land and expect them to pay the full value for that laud? This should not be done, lie contended, and a reduction in price should be made at the start; otherwise the soldier settlers would be condemned to the hardships that had been experienced in the past. • An. attempt should be made to make the Bill an acceptable one, and steps should he taken to ensure that the landowners were called upon to make no undue sacrifice. The Government should also make an efi’ort to allay the alarm which the Bill had created. Mr Boswell said that there was. no intention to push tho farmer out into tho street. He had the word of tho Minister that his promise that each farm would bo divided into throe farms, and one left for the farmer in possession, would be written into the regulations. Tories had always fought for land aggregation, he said, and against subdivision, and it was significant that, under their now loader, they wore back on the old paths, fighting for aggregation. The Government was not going anv longer to permit land aggregation to stamf in the rrzy of tV development of this country. FREEHOLD IDEAL. Mr Atmore, in supporting the Bill, said that there was a big argument in favour, of the leasehold tenure, but there was no use shutting their eyes to the fact that there was a very deep, and abiding desire on tho part of the farmer to own his laud, so that ho could hand it on to his children. The State could get what it required from the land whether it took it as rent or tax, and if the Government insisted on the’leasehold only, it would put a very potent weapon into the hands of its opponents, because any man on the land would vote for tho party that

would give him the freehold. The land should bo given to the soldiers, and not sold or rented to them.

The soldier worked under conditions that would bring extra wages in civil life, and was consequently paying an advance on the land he was defending. Mr Frost said the Bill was an expression of the Government’s policy of rewarding the soldiers for their services. The Government in this measure was setting forward a plan to make men even more secure on the land. It would place them on economic farms. He attacked 'farmers’ union criticism of the Bill, contending that such a type of criticism had certain dangers in it. UNOCCUPIED LAND PLENTIFUL. Mr F.ndean asked if the Bill wore really necessary, in-view of the great area of land we had in New Zealand at the present time that was capable of development. He quoted figures from the Abstract of Statistics showing that there were some 19,000,000 acres of unoccupied land, and suggested that the Government should have adopted a policy of bringing some of this area into cultivation instead of pursuing its present Public Works policy. Could not some of the land at present under blackberry and scrub bo cleared and brought into production? he asked; and he considered that if this were done it would go a long w.ay to solve the problem at present facing tho Administration. SOLDIERS’ INHERENT RIGHT. Mr Schramm said that the man who went , away to fight for the land had a certain inherent right to it if he wanted it when he came back. He expressed tho hope that when the Bill became an Act its administration would be exercised with caution and fairness. Thoro wore certain provisions in it to which under ordinary circumstances he would not agree, but these were not ordinary circumstances in view of the war. He did not think that under ordinary conditions the Minister should be asked to make decisions and then adjudicate on those decisions, and he would make a special appeal to the Minister that when he acted in a judicial capacity he would have the fullest information at his disposal. He was confident that the Minister, on whom a great deal of the success of administration depended, would act in a proper judicial capacity without fear or favour to anyone. WHY NOT POSTPONE? Mr Dickie suggested that as Ministers . had tacitly agreed that some of the criticism was sound they should postpone the legislation to give an opportunity of preparing a new measure. He then moved an amendment that the Bill be referred back to the Government for further consideration for the following reasons:—

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 payment of 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 he 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 be redrafted to preserve the traditional features of British law and right of appeal to a free and independent court to determine the amount .of compensation that is payable to individual 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 Roy seconded’ the amendment. The debate was adjourned, and the House rose at 11.35 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. to-morrow.

FARMERS MUST MAKE STAND

IS THE TIME COME ? [Peis United Press Association.] CHRISTCHURCH, November 27. ■ “It ig a question whether the day of protest may not be gone and whether action is needed,”• said Mr A. M. Carpenter in a discussion on the Small Farms Amendment Bill by the executive of the North Canterbury district of the Farmers’ Union to-day. “ I fet'l that anything we move here will only be a protest. I have said to the farmers that there will come a time when we shall have to make a stand and whether that time is now I do not know.’ A resolution strongly protesting against the Bill was passed on the motion of Mr Carpenter seconded by Mr M. Spencer-Bower. It read as follows:—“This executive of the North Canterbury district of the Farmers’ Union, representing 24 branches from the Rakaia to the Conway, emphatically protests against the injustice of the Small Farms Amendment Bill at present before the House.” Opening the discussion, the president (Mr R. G. Bishop) said that Mr G. C. Warren had been in touch with the Dominion president (Mr W. W. Mulholland), and a strong protest was desired. Mr Mulholland had said that soldiers wore mentioned only once in the Bill. It seemed that it was simply part of the Government’s policy of socialisation. “ We’ll have the Government taking over the land and working it in the Russian style and we know what that moans,” said Mr Bishop. “ I think we have got to protest strongly against these measures after all our fathers and our forefathers have done to make the counxry Irani: it is to-day. ?5 “ This is a direct assault on the sanctity of the rights of one class of people—that is, the farmers,” said Mr Carpenter. It was an attempt to legalise the method of taking land which had been tried at Kuku in the North Island, where the protests of the,settlors had caused the withdrawal of the proclamation. He said that no other section of the people had done more to assist the Government in the prosecution of the war, yet a Bill had been brought down which had no regard for the greatest essentials of liberty.

“Without the right of app;-,! to the Supremo Court,” Mr Carpenter said,

“wo are to see the most sacred of our rights filched from us by a policy in which we have neither part nor lot nor sympathy. There is no language to express the injustice involved. I feel that we will not get what we are entitled to by protesting. It is a question of what action is to be taken, but I feel that as free men we are going back to a serfdom and a thraldom which men have always tried to avoid. I know Ministers. , One lias no confidence that the Minister will do the right thing because the policy is wrong and the principle is w r rong.” Mr Spencer-Bower said that the Bill did away with all security of tenure and would cause the land to go back as it did under the shortterm lease. In some countries shortterm leases were regarded as a crime. In Germany land had to be handed down from father to son, and they believed in keeping the land in the same hands. “ One of the fundamentals of British justice is the right of appeal to a Supreme Court judge, and this is being filched from us by the Bill,” said Mr K. W. J. Hall. The resolution of protest, which was drafted by Mr Carpenter -while the discussion was in progress, was carried unanimously without further discussion.