THREAT TO PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OF LAND

Manawatu Times, Volume 65, Issue 270, 2 November 1940, Page 8

THREAT TO PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OF LAND

Small Farms Amendment Bill FARMERS RECORD STRONG OPPOSITION The Small Farms Amendment Bill which tho Government deferred at its last sitting and which comes up when the House resumes, on November 26, was strongly opposed by yesterday’s meeting of tho Wellington Central Provincial Executive of the Farmers’ Union held at Feilding. Mr. D. G. Gordon (president) said that the* proposed Bill was a most important measure and one possessing farreaching proposals as far as farmers were concerned. Farmers were not opposed to any general scheme of land settlement for discharged soldiers, but did oppose the removal from the Statute Book of existing safeguards relating to the taking of land i'or settlement. The Bill proposed to scrap these safeguards and to introduce a new system with fewer safeguards. It also occurred to the speaker that there were one or two provisions in the Bill that might be used in an exceedingly unjust war; not that ho was imputing any such intention on the part of the Government, but ho did feel that there was no justification for provisions of the kind. He instanced one clause which provided that the date for assessing the value of land which had been taken by the Government would be the date of the vesting of the laud in the Crown and that latter date could be five years ahead. To him this was a rather dangerous provision since it could be used in sympathy with any policy which might develop whereby the value of land was depressed. He was not in tavour of giving any Government such wide powers to derfl with land purchase and settlement.

Mr. A. Howard (Marton) felt that the measure was in thfl nature of being another plank in the Government’s socialisation policy. "I look upon it as being a very dangerous Bill,” remarked Mr. J. B. S. Dudding (Marton). The strongest possible protest should be made against the measure, remarked Mr. Howard, who went on to suggest that the Farmers’ Union should at once set up a committee with power to take up the cases of farmers who might be involved in the event of the Bill being passed without amendment.

Mr. Lloyd Hammond moved the fob lowing resolution:—

"That this executive pretests in the strongest possible terms against tho provisions of the Small Farms Amendment Bill, and calls upon every farmer in New Zealand to investigate closely the powers which the Government proposes to take under it. ‘*We object (among other things) to:— (1) The doing away with the provisions of the Lands for Settlements Act, 1925, which allowed a farmer to retain 400 acres of first-class land; 1000 acres of second-class land; 2500 acres.of | third-class land. This Bill gives power to take thp whole of any farm, of to pick tho eye out of any farm. (2) The institution of two systems of acquiring land, viz., one for land for small farms, and another for all other land the Government desires to acquire. (3) The taking away of the Supremo Court judge and replacing him with a Magistrate. (4) The removal of the provisions of the Public Works Act which make Government transactions in land open to public inspection. (5) The basis or lack of basis for arriving at the value of land taken. (6) The decreasing of the time for lodging claims for compensation. (7) The complete departure from tho known, tried, and established methods of taking land. “In conclusion, wo would state emphatically that there is no valid reason for departing from tho Public Works Act which has worked satisfactorily for many year s, and in which the legal precedents arc well established, and which has proved satisfactory a long period. ’ * In support of *ihe motion Mr. Hammond said that it appealed to him that the Bill was put forward more with tho idea of introducing State ownership of tho land than with dealing with settlement for discharged soldiers. This conclusion he drew from tho recent utterance of the Hon. P. Webb and he felt that farmers were fully justified in regarding the Bill with the utmost suspicion. The removal from Statute of the right, of a disaffocted land-owner to appeal to the Supreme Court for the adjustment of his grievance seemed to him to be opposed to t.he principles of British justice. In short, the Bill was taking powers which could not be considered as being in line with ideas of justice and equity.

Mr. Howard considered that it ought to be a good defence against the Crown taking land if the owner of the land could prove that he was farming it to capacity. He had no sympathy with those who were holding land and not farming it properly. The Hon. J. G. Cobbe, M.P., present by invitation, stated that the Opposition had been successful in having the measure deferred until the House resumed on November 26. He had at first supported the proposed Bill, but after looking into it was satisfied that he could not accord his support to a measure which contained so many objectionable features. On the face of it it looked all right, but it was essential that the public had an opportunity of examining the proposals. Generally all would approve of the. idea of making provision for the settling of a returned soldier on the land. It was a duty the country owed to the returned soldiers and it was a duty tho land-owner owed also. But the proposed measure did not accord with those ideas and in his opinion fT was the object . the Government to obtain control cf the land. There was no doubt in his mind that the Government was out to assume control of all land and the Bill was a step towards this end. Dealing with the several clauses in the proposed Bill Mr. Cobbe said that there was power for the Minister to take any land. Clause 6, he suggested, was open to corruption. It was definitely wrong to incorporate any such provision and it would be wrong for the House to agree to it. Clause 7 pro-

vided that aftor reviewing the objection of any land-owner the Minister could decide to take the land. Clause 8 provided that the market value of the land would be the amount ■which in the opinion of the Magistrate’s Court the land might realise if offered for sale wholly for cash. How many farms are transferred on a wholly cash basis! asked the member, who suggested that this would tend to depress tho valuo of the land. If the Bill was passed then all the land in New Zealand would come under the direct control of the Govern ment.

Mr. Cobbe suggested that meetings of farmers should be called so that the opportunity could be taken to explain the importances of tho clauses. Soldiers were away to-day lighting dictatorships but when they returned, if the Bill became law, they would be facing another form of dictatorship—shackled to landlordism. Mr. Hammond *s motion was seconded by Mr. Bergen and Mr. D. D. Simpson (Hunterville) urged the holding of meetings, as suggested by Mr. Cobbe, in order to make the position as widely known as possible. Ho considered it a very dangerous measure. Tho resolution waß carried unanimously and it was further agreed to arrange for mass meetings of farmers and to advise other provincial executives of the action takeu.