FARMS FOR SOLDIERS

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume 80, 29 November 1945, Page 6

FARMS FOR SOLDIERS

COMPULSORY CLAUSES OF ACT TOWER TO ACQUIRE PRIVATE PROPERTY OPPOSITION CRITICISM (From Our Parliamentary Reporter) Wellington, Nov., 28. Future provision for ex-servicemen desiring to settle on the land was discussed during the second reading debate on the Servicemen’s Settlement and Land Sales Amendment Bill in the House of Representatives. The Minister of Lands (Mr Skinner) said the difficulty at the present time was not in purchasing land, the handicap chiefly being the necessary development work —the buildings and so on—required before ex-servicemen could be settled. He had no doubt, however, that the time would come when they would be unable to purchase all the land required by negotiation and it would be necessary to use the compulsory clauses of the Act. The main reason for the Bill was tc anticipate some o* the difficulties that they foresaw. After considerable discussion and the introduction of a Government amendment dealing with farmlets the Bill was passed. Dealing with the clause in the Bill concerning the right of an owner to retain an economic holding when land is taken for the settlement of a discharged servicemen or of two or more discharged servicemen, the Minister said that under the principal Act power was given to issue an order purchasing land by compulsion if necessary when it war capable of sub-division for the settlement of ex-service personnel. There were several difficulties there. To date notices had been served in respect of only 16 properties, chiefly estates. In some cases absentee owners had been concerned, but in general they had been large estates capable of sub-division into many units. It had been found in some of the cases that every beneficiary in the estate would have the right to claim an economic unit. In one particular case the beneficiaries numbering over 20, though they were children, would have the right to retain an economic holding in that estate. The Minister said he thought everyone would agree that that was absurd. The clause in the Bill altered that position. It defined “owner” and the economic area which could be retained by the owner and made it possible for the Minister of Lands to serve notice over land which need not necessarily be sub-divisible. The Minister said that the clause for compensation when land was taken would relate only to any loss suffered from interrupted farming operations and not to other matters outside the actual farming work. The application of Part 3 of the Act to the purchase of land for charitable trusts arose from the undesirable feature that a certain charitable trust, which was a trading concern, had been acquiring properties throughout the Dominion. Therefore it was proposed to make it necessary for any charitable trust purchasing land to go before the Land Sales Committee. However the procedure was not altered where land was donated to trusts for charitable purposes. “ATTACK ON PRIVATE OWNER” Mr W. Sullivan (National, Bay of Plenty) said the Sill was in keeping with the main Act which was an attack on the private property owner. He wondered who the Minister expected to develop the unimproved country of New Zealand. The Government had failed to go on with any intensive land settlement policy so that to carry out its promises to the servicemen it had to take land from private owners. The only result was that one occupier walked out and another walked in. Men who had developed land were entitled to retain it. The Government had shied off land development, Mr Sullivan continued. The reason the Government was taking over private properties was on account of the cost involved in developing unimproved land. In other words the private owner was getting less for his land than it would cost the Government to develop land for settlement. What farmer could develop the land by working a 40-hour week? he asked. Men Who had made land development their life’s work were to be dispossessed because the Government had failed to do its joo.

Mr Sullivan said that if it wei*e right to apply that policy to the primary producer it must apply the same rule to the manufacturer. Would that policy be carried out? He was with the Government in its desire to do its utmost for the settlement of returned servicemen on the land, in business and in homes. At the same time he considered the Government had failed in its responsibility in respect to land development. The Government never had and never would have an agricultural bias. It was antagonistic to the primary producers all the way. The Minister of Internal Affairs, Mr Parry, said that although the eyes had been picked, out of the first-class land the Government had done much in the way of developing other land and instanced the pumice country of Rotorua and the clay land of North Auckland. Mr W. A. Bodkin (National, Central Otago) said the Government was now in the position, after 10 years, where, because of its failure to develop land, it had nothing in the shape of a comprehensive land settlement policy to offer the soldiers, and all l could offer them was the opportunity to go out and buy such farms as were available and on the market.

Mr W. A. Sheat (National, Patea) asked why when there were persons oWning chain stores, transport businesses, and a number of picture theaties people owning several farms should be singled out for special attention. He said that apparently it was a crime in the opinion of the Government for a person to own several properties.

The Prime Minister (Mr Fraser) said that land could not be extended like other businesses; there were essential differences. He asked whether if there were huge areas of land on which returned soldiers could be sett Led the Opposition was prepared to say they

should not be settled on such land. He I would like to know the mind of the House regarding land aggregation and the splitting up of land where more was held by one owner than was re- ! quired. There was nothing against a I person who owned broad acres, but in regard to the economy of the country and soldier settlement was the member for Patea opposed to land being taken and soldiers being settled more closely? Mr E. B. K. Gordon (National, Rangitikei) contended that the Government found itself in the present position because it had delayed buying land. He said he thought land could still be obtained by negotiation better than by compulsion or under any legislation. Mr W. J. Poison (National, Stratford) said that if the process of cutting up land into small units were continued it would do irreparable harm. The Government proposed to take men from productive land who were doing their best on reasonable sized farms and cut the areas up ant, put unfortunate soldiers on them. Men rehabilitated on to those small blocks would have no hope of success because the blocks would be too small. ACQUISITION OF FARMLETS To provide for the acquisition by the ! State of small areas of farm lands preI viously outside the scope of the Servicemen’s Settlement and Land Sales Act a Government amendment was introduced. The Minister of Lands explained that the amendment was made necessary because of a ruling given recently in connection with the purchase of a farmlet in Canterbury when it was ruled by the Land Sales Court that that particular farmlet did not come under the heading of farm land. As there would be hundreds of men 1 who would desire to be placed on farm, lets of that kind, said the Minister, it was felt necessary to amend the Act. The farmlet he had referred to was an i area of 20 acres that would have been ! admirably suited for establishing a | rural worker, or a worker in a freez- • ing works or at a lime works. | On the suggestion of the Leader of ; the Opposition (Mr the clause was passed, the Minister having agreed to a conference with his officers and j any interested members. If an amend, j ment were found to be necessary, said ! Mr Skinner, it would be inserted when the Bill was before the Legislative | Council. MINISTER'S REPLY J After listening to the criticism of i Opposition members he thought it time the House was told what they really believed in respect to land settlement for returned men, said the Minister of Lands replying to the debate. The Opposition had spoken with several voices. The Minister said he had stated on numerous occasions that the Government would not take land under the compulsory clauses of the Act if it occasioned hardship. He was sure that ex-servicemen did not wish to be placed on the land at the expense of other people. The Government was anxious to see ex-servicemen settled on the land sftid where the property could be purchased by negotiation that was the method ado fted. It was only when negotiation failed that the compulsory clauses of the Act would be used. It was estimated, said Mr Skinner, that before rehabilitation was complete something like 8000 men would require settlement on the land. Between 800,000 and 1,000,000 acres of land would be re- ' quired for this purpose. Up till now it had been absolutely impossible for the Government or for individuals to do any worth-while development work, owing to the war. It would have been impossible to have done such work when even the individual farmer could not maintain production because of the lack of fertiliser and labour. It was only in recent months that they could count on getting additional labour to carry out development work, and it was only now that they were getting I down to any plan with any degree of | accuracy. 1 The Government considered, he said, that the 8000 men it would be called upon to settle on the land would be settled within the next four years, and for the next two years anyway the main land settlement would be on grassland or land that was grassland to-day. It had been stated that men were being settled only on fullydeveloped land, but that wac not the case. Men would be settled on land just as soon as sufficient development work had been carried out on it to give tnem a reasonable chance of success and give them a reasonable living. The Government did not want to hang on to land a moment longer than was necessary, and as soon as it had reached the state of development he had mentioned the ex-servicemen would take it over. The Government was quite prepared to buy first-class land, providing the productive value warranted the purchase. The cost of development over and above the productive value of the land would be borne by the State. Mr E. B. Corbett (National, Egmont): The Government is already writing down the land for servicemen’s settle* ment. The Minister said that in all probability it would write down some millions of pounds in that way, but it would do its writing down now, and not wait for 20 years. They were quite prepared to advance 100 per cent of the finance necessary to establish a man as an economic unit.