The Gisborne Herald. WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED “THE TIMES.” GISBORNE, TUESDAY, NOV, 26, 1940. SMALL FARMS BILL

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXVII, Issue 20414, 26 November 1940, Page 6

The Gisborne Herald. WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED “THE TIMES.” GISBORNE, TUESDAY, NOV, 26, 1940. SMALL FARMS BILL

Parliament resumes to-day to discuss primarily, so far as has been disclosed, two extremely contentious measures which are only remotely connected with the war effort and which savour strongly of an attempt to use war conditions to further partisan ambitions. The first is the amendment to the Shops and Office Act which is designed to take away from communities the right to select the half-holiday most suited to their circumstances and to confer upon the Arbitration Court the power to fix closing hours of .shops. No satisfactory reason has been advanced for the measure and there is a strong suspicion that it is an indirect method ef securing, firstly, a universal half-holi-day, and, ultimately, a five-day week tor shops. The most serious eil'ect of this proposal, if it is enacted, will be on the farming community, DUt its harmful possibilities will be trifling compared with those inherent in the second measure, the amendment io the Small Farms Bill which is designed to give tire Government power to proceed with its policy of socialising the land. This measure is being introduced in the guise of making provision for soldier settlement after the war but, in fact, rehabilitation is only incidental to the plans which the Government envisages, for it is proposed to take power to confiscate the whole of the land of the Dominion on arbitrary terms and conditions. It is deplorable that such a contentious measure should be introduced at this time but, judging by the comments of the Minister, it is intended lo proceed with the bill regardless of the opposition to it throughout the Dominion. The Minister, tacitly at least, admits the wideness of the powers contained in the measure but expects the farmers to be satisfied with an assurance that they will be applied with discretion. The farmers, however, are suspicious, and in view of the Minister’s known antagonism to the farmers and the freehold system and his advocacy of the Soviet system of collective farming their concern is fully justified. The suspicions are increased by the procedure adopted and by the provisions of the measure. In the first place, instead of bringing the proposals down in a separate Act, an attempt is made to obscure them in an amendment to the Small Farms Act. Actually, the bill does not concern small farms at all, but gives the Government power to take any land, which might mean individual holdings or whole districts. Having dispossessed the owners of the freehold, the Minister is then empowered, not to grant the freehold to returned soldiers, as might be assumed, but to farm the land for the Slate or to grant leases. The abolition of the freehold in stages thus becomes a certainty and State farming on a large scale a distinct possibility. Tlie present owner of the land receives scant consideration. The whole or any part of his holding may be taken from him and he may be completely deprived of his means of livelihood. Certainly he is to be paid compensation—at a rate determined by appointees of the Minister and on a basis on which land is never normally valued; and if he is not satisfied with the award he can appeal—to the Minister. Never has a more unjust procedure been contemplated and it could not be excused even if the real object was to provide farms for returned soldiers. It is right that provision should be made for the men who return from the war, but they would be the last to suggest that farmers should be turned off their land to make way for newcomers and the farmers have as much reason to complain as any other section of workers would have if it was proposed that they should be ejected from their employment to provide for ex-soldiers. If the Minister doubts this he might try introducing a bill making it. compulsory for miners and waterside workers to resign their union membership in order to facilitate the rehabilitation of soldiers. The parallel is not absurd, as it might seem, because the bill now before Parliament gives the Government precisely similar powers in regard to farmers. It is little wonder that the legislation is being bitterly opposed. The soldiers for whose benefit the bill is ostensibly designed are at present overseas preventing the dictators from land-grabbing operations on a grand scale. At least it can be said for the dictators, however, that they do not. dispossess the small farmers. Even Russia, whose system Mr. Langslone desires to emulate, did allow the peasants of the Baltic States to retain sufficient land lo maintain themselves and their families. In New Zealand, however, Mr. Langstone wants power to take all of a farmer’s land so that the soldiers are faced with the possibility of returning to New Zealand to find that the evil they have checked overseas has been perpetrated in their own country during

their absence. It is possible, at least, that they will also find that instead of land being available for settlement by them, as the public is now being led to believe, it is intended that they should become part of a new socialistic experiment in Stale farming. It is desirable that full provision should lie made for those soldiers who desire to go on the land but every necessary power is contained in existing legislation. The only thing that is not there is power to proceed with the socialisation of the land. The farmers, fortunately. arc aware of the menace that confronts them and if the Government, in turn, realises the temper of the farmers it will not attempt to force the passage of the bill.