Nelson Evening Mail. TUESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 1940 CONFISCATING PRINCIPLES

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXXIII, 3 December 1940, Page 4

Nelson Evening Mail. TUESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 1940 CONFISCATING PRINCIPLES

THE fact that the Small Farms Amendment Bill is on its way to the statute book does not make some of its provisions any the more acceptable. In spite of reasoned protests inside and outside the House it was forced through because the Government, safe in its numerical superiority, was able to disregard any amendments except its own, and secure its passage unchanged in any of its principles. Under such “big stick” procedure any measure, however bad, could become law if sponsored by the Government. Now it remains to be seen how the Government interprets the powers with which it has armed itself. The Prime Minister (Mr Fraser) assured objectors that only owners of land which was being inadequately farmed would be in danger and that compulsion in acquisition would be used only where negotiation had failed. But these are only Ministerial assurances; they are not written into the Bill. In many speeches made during the

Parliamentary debate supporters of the Bill, almost to a man, spoke of the necessity for making adequate plans to settle soldiers on the land when rehabilitation begins. They quoted instances of the costly failures of the last soldier settlement scheme and said that these must not be repeated. Common justice and patriotism, they said, demanded that the soldier who was fighting for his country should be given a bit of it when he returned to the shores he had helped to protect. With these sentiments nobody disagrees. There was no need to spend days and nights arguing about that issue. Opposition members and those who criticised the Bill outside the House were just as anxious to see these things done as the Government. Where they disagreed sharply was in the assumption of unnecessary bureaucratic powers 'which the Government apparently feels it must have to carry out rehabilitation. For that it has no plan; what it was surprisingly anxious to get without delay was power to take any land it pleased. The plan for using it could wait.. Opposition to the Bill arose chiefly from two of its fundamental principles: The Government’s right to take any land it pleases, in what areas it pleases and to farm it as it pleases; the right to pay for it what it pleases without giving the owner any real safeguard concerning right of appeal. There are two principles which have long been the basis of freehold tenure; now they have been confiscated. Whatever the circumstances which seem to require it, the right to take land at will is much too big a power to place in the hands of any Minister in a democratic country. In the opinion of a high legal authority, Mr W. J. Sim, K.C., violation of the second principle “may be in effect an invasion of constitutional justice.” The right of appeal to a Magistrate and assessors, instead of to a Judge of the Supreme Court, is, on the Prime Minister’s own admission, only an experiment. Neither he nor any other Minister explained satisfactorily why it had been decided to make that experiment. The only crumb of comfort was his promise to alter it if it worked unfairly. But he did not say who was to be the judge of unfairness; neither did he say who was going to interpret the meaning of that dangerously elastic expression, “inadequately used,” which is to be the test applied to decide what landowners are going to be shorn. The urge to own land is elemental and there is a historic reluctance of landowners to give up land, irrespective of price compensation. If the Government thinks that compulsion will overcome this it may be disappointed. Politically, the Bill has left a bad taste in the mouths of many New Zealanders and has made the Government suspect. If it is the law that land can be acquired by the State at will, why not manufacturing industries and privatelyowned businesses? This would need but one further legislative step and the excuse for it might well be that a rehabilitation plan needed the right to settle soldiers in industry and commerce as well as on farms. The Government would probably scout the idea that it was intended to anything of the kind, but what difference is there in principle between the two proposals?, A Government which would arm itself with power to destroy private ownership of land could not be expected to baulk before other forms of private ownership. Both would achieve socialisation by indirect means. This is the great danger of allowing a measure like the Small Farms Bill to reach the statute book. The Government which put it there may not always be in charge of its administration. If parties stay in power, personnel of Cabinets changes and the time could arrive when there would be a Minister of Lands who would revel in the powers that this Bill gives. Even with the present personnel its administration will be watched with vigilance. The Government will need to be very careful in applying the new provisions. It would be a scandal if it turned out that, under the guise of legislation to benefit soldiers, a large slice of a policy of socialisation had been implemented.