LAND FOR SOLDIERS

Greymouth Evening Star, 29 November 1940, Page 8

LAND FOR SOLDIERS

NEW BILL CRITICISED MR/HOLLAND’S SPEECH [PER PRESS ASSOCIATION.] < — \ WELLINGTON, November 28. _ When the House resumed this afternoon, on Mr Fraser’s motion, urgency was granted for the Small Farms Amendment Bill, and continuing the debate Mr Roy said it had been suggested in the course of the debate that land should be given to the soldiers free, but he reminded the House that, when men came back from the last war, they did not want charity of any kind. All they wanted was a fair chance. If it were proposed to give; free land, he asked, why not also give free grocery businesses to grocers, free practices to lawyers, etc. Mr J. A. Lee: Set them up free of debt! ■ Mr Roy agreed that there should not be a debt stranglehold on the returned soldier. Mr T. D. Burnett (Govt., Temuka) said the whole question of land settlement was one that required careful study, and he considered men on both sides of the House should have gone into the question of framing a land settlement scheme before legislation was introduced. v

Hon. J. G. Cobbe (Nat., Manawatu) said this Bill gave the Minister the power to ruin any farmer in the Dominion. Farmers were willing and ready to do what, was fair for returned soldiers, but the man on the land was entitled to, and should get, a fair deal and that was all that the Opposition was asking. At this stage the amendment moved by Mr Dickie was put to the House and was defeated, on a division, by 41 votes to 19. The second reading debate was continued after the tea adjournment in the House by Sir A. P. Ngata, who suggested that Maori returned soldiers should be settled on suitable grounds in districts to which they had belonged. The Leader of the Opposition, Mr S. G. Holland, said that, in his first speech this week in the House as newly-appointed Leadei’ of the Opposition, he had -said his Party would support good Bills, strengthen weak ones, and oppose bad ones. He thought the present measure was a mixture of the last two. It was a mixture of weakness and badness. There had been nothing that had happened in the House for a long time that had so disturbed the farming community as the present Bill. The Opposition had received protests from all 'over the country about it from all shades of political opinion. The Bill, although it was intended to rehabilitate returned soldiers, did not satisfy the Returned Soldiers’ Association. This was no. time for introducing legislation having to do with soldiers that was likely to divide people. This was no time for organising party politics. Government members would agree_ with that statement, he added. However, the Government Party had apparently not agreed with it in connection with the Waipawa by-election contest. Much criticism had been levelled at farmers, continued Mr Holland. The moment a group of farmers got together to express opinions upon their own affairs, they were charged with bias and partisanship. Although the Minister of Lands had said there was nothing new in the measure, it contained power to take the whole of anybody’s farm. He was not prepared to assist in passing legislation of the one-sided character of this Bill. It cancelled all present safeguards. The Opposition would fight for the right of a returned soldier to become owner of his farm.

MINISTER’S REPLY. The Minister of Lands, Mr Langstone, in reply, said that the arguments against the Bill had not shown up any weakness, but rather weakness of those who criticised the measure. It was our job to prepare land here and now for the soldiers when they came back. All the discussion on the Bill had been on the wrong foot. The Bill had nothing to do with the Land for Settlement Act, or the Pubic Works Act. It took existing clauses from these Acts, and included them in one measure. The Leader of the Opposition had accused him of being misleading when he had said the Bill was for the settlement of returned soldiers. All Mr Holland needed to do was to read the preamble of the Bill itself, which definitely and specifically mentioned that it was for the settlement of discharged soldiers. Mr W. J. Polson: The Bill does enable the Minister to take land for other than discharged soldiers. Mr Langstone: Yes, certainly; but the discharged soldiers will be given the preference. If there is, land idle after the soldiers are settled, should it be left idle?

Mr Langstone accused the Opposition of trying to stir up political strife and hatred, and with feeding them on imaginary wrongs and grievances. Referring to land purchases, he said there had not been one compulsory purchase in the last 30 to 35 years. This was simply because the Court awards were always given against the Lands Department, which was afraid to go into Court in such cases. Dealing with the settlement of Maori' returned soldiers, the Min'ister said that these men would be treated on exactly the same basis as the Pakehas. The Maori soldier of New Zealand, he said, had not gone away only to fight for the Maoris, and he 'was entitled to the same rights as the Pakeha. Mr Langstone said that when he had met the Returned Soldiers’ representatives recently, they had asked for the free'hold, and when he told them that the basis of tenure would be 33 years renewable leasehold, they had appeared to be satisfied. He had also given them the assurance that the lands would be settled on a true economic basis. The Bill set out in fairly lucid form the ways and means whereby land could be acquired, and that it was to be for returned soldier settlement. That was the purpose of the Bill. No land would be taken away compulsorily from soldiers away fighting or from those who had sons away. If a man wanted to offer his land, that, of course, was a different thing. No land would be taken if it were not suitable for three additional settlers. Surely, these safeguards would do away with a lot of fears and bogies that had been raised against “taking any land anywhere.” The passing of the second reading was forced -to a division by- the Op-

position, and was carried by 41 votes ,to 19. . The short title of the Bill was carried a few minutes after midnight by 34 votes to 14. Progress was reported at 12.8 a.m., and the House rose at 12.10 a.m., until 10.30 a.m. today, when the remaining clauses of the Bill will be considered in committee. - .