SMALL FARMS BILL

Timaru Herald, Volume CXLVIII, Issue 21822, 27 November 1940, Page 6

SMALL FARMS BILL

Brisk Dehate In The House Necessity For Measure Questioned Violation Of Rights Alleged By Telegraph —Press Association WELLINGTON, November 26. In the House this afternoon, the Prime Minister moved for urgency when the continuation of the second reading of the Small Farms Amendment Bill, which was adjourned when the House rose in October, was reached on the order paper. Mr Fraser explained that it was not proposed to keep the House later than midnight tonight on Jhe second reading stage of this measure. Mr W. J. Polson (National Stratford): Why urgency? Mr Fraser: It is urgent to finish the session. The motion was forced to a division by the Opposition and the motion for urgency was carried by 43 votes to 21, the voting being strictly on Party lines. Resuming l}is speech in the second reading debate which was interrupted by the adjournment of the House on October 11. Mr W. J. Broadfoot (National, Waitomo), reminded the House that there was on the Statute Book the Discharged Soldiers Settlement Act, which contained all the machinery necessary for placing soldiers on the land. In the present Bill there were some undesirable aspects and it was possible that the “eyes might be picked out” of a person's land without compensation being paid. Although there was power under the Bill to take land for returned soldiers, there was no mention of the conditions under which the land should be made available. The Bill was not warranted at present and he was surprised that urgency had been claimed for it. “Not Aimed at Working Farmers” Mr J. G. Barclay (Labour, Marsden), said the Government was putting the Bill through primarily for returned soldiers and the propaganda against the Bill was chiefly for the purpose of justifying the propaganda of the Government’s political opponents at the last election. Before the last election the Opposition had said that if the Labour Party were returned to power it would take land away from farmers, and with their propaganda to-day they were trying to tell farmers “I told you so.” The Government had not taken land from farmers and had no intention of taking land from any farmer who was farming his land and making use of it as he should. Working farmers were not opposed to the Bill because they knew it was not aimed at them. They knew the Government would provide land for their soldier sons. The Hon. Sir Alfred Ransom (National. Pahiatua) said that returned soldiers were being used by the Minister of Lands to socialise the land. The Bill could have only one primary aim, namely, to put into effect the Government's policy of socialisation. Under the Bill it would be possible to take land from soldiers who had already been settled. He did not suggest that the Government had any intention of doing that, but the power was there. The men overseas were fighting for freedom, but when they returned the Government would not give them freedom of the land they occupied. All they could expect was to occupy the land as State tenants. The settlement of ex-soldiers on the land was merely a blind, he said, and was unquestionably being used for the socialisation of land, otherwise there was no necessity for the Bill. Mr L. G. Lowry (Labour, Otaki) asked if it were reasonable to suppose that the Government would dispossess farmers of their land arid replace them with others. Both parties were asking for unanimity from the people during the war period, and the House should set an example. He wanted to support the Minister and congratulate him on the Bill, which was a genuine attempt to make provision for those defending our shores so that on their return, if they so desired, they could take part in farming. We should make provision for these men now and have decent land available for them on their return. He was sure returned soldiers as a body would be satisfied with this Bill. Principles Violated Mr C. G. E. Harker, new member for Waipawa. who was making his maiden speech, declared it was because the Opposition desired a comprehensive, effective measure for the settlement of returned soldiers that they opposed the Bill in its present form. Tire tenure provisions in the Bill, he said, violated every principle of security. Was it any wonder that the Returned Soldiers’ Association had demanded the right to acquire the freehold? Returned soldiers wanted a special Bill about which they could be heard and which should not' be rushed through the House in the dying stages of the session. It was only by giving the right to the freehold that the main principles of land settlement could be achieved. He suggested that the measure should be replaced by an amendment to the Discharged Soldiers Settlement Act and that the Returned Soldiers’ Association and other interested parties should have an opportunity to examine it thoroughly. Mr E. P. Meachen (Labour, Marlborough), said he did not care what title was given to the Bill. All he wanted was to see the job done, and he was satisfied the Bill would do that job. New Outlook Advocated Mr J. A. Lee (Democratic Labour, Grey Lynn), suggested that the Government should adopt a new outlook regarding land settlement and aim at the diversification of farming. Rather than increasing production primary producing countries should turn to manufacture and the manufacturing countries of Europe should enlarge primary production. None could say whether or not there would be a market for the increased production of butter, cheese and wool after the war. Dealing with the question of land for settlement Mr Lee said many landowners had more land than they could use efficiently, and he suggested that the Government might ask for offers of surplus land in exchange for a mortgage arrangement that would allow the farmer to free the rest of his land from debt over a period of years. He believed if this were done all the land required would be secured. The Minister of Housing, the Hon. H. T. Armstrong, said the Government was trying to avoid the mistakes of the past and was making provision in this Bill to do the right thing for soldiers. A reasonable price would be paid for the land, and he contended the principle underlying the opposition to the Bill was the “God-given right of the landowner to hold out against any Government until he received the price he thought his land was worth.” Mr Lee, he said, had partly supported the Bill and partly condemned tt, but the Government did not want partial support. Mr Lee: You want “Yes men. Mr Armstrong: We want yes or no men. . .. . Replying to opposition criticism that men settled under the Bill would have no security of tenure, the Minister said their safeguard would be that the legislation would be administered by a Labour Government for generations to come. Last time, he said, the soldier settlement scheme was prepared hurriedly, but this time the Government was preparing early so that the best possible system for putting returned men on the land might be devised. The Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates expressed the opinion that settlers should have the option of freehold or leasehold, and he asked the Prime Minister and Minister of Lands to reconsider the

substitution of a Magistrate for a Judge of the Supreme Court, and also the question of leaving enough land for the original farmer to make a reasonable living. Let the men who came back get the best deal possible, but at the same time give a fair deal to the men who farmed the land and were making a material contribution to our security. Trying to Avoid Mistakes Mr Fraser said he hoped all members agreed that ample provision should be made for land settlement on a sound economic basis for soldiers who returned and that the mistakes of the past, some of them tragic, should be avoided. The men who came back would not stand for similar mistakes as those made in the past, when there were not even enough houses for those who wished to settle down. The Government had to make preparations now for the settlement of the men who would return, and in this direction had to watch all the contingencies which might arise. It did not want to repeat the mistakes of the past. In saying that he did not wish to begin any recriminations, but rather that we should learn from our past mistakes. If returned men wished to settle on the land we must make provision for them to do so. Reference had been made to the efforts of farmers in the war, but he would also point to similar efforts by other sections of the community. We were all interdependent, he said, and each relied on the efforts of others. Where it was necessary for the war effort, he said, the Government stood for compulsion being used. This might not be necessary. Some members had said that landholders would come forward and offer land for settlement. If this were so then let them come forward. If land could be obtained through people coming forward and offering it or by negotiation and purchase then this would be the best method, but this method had not been adequate. If it could be shown it were adequate then so much the better. Mr W. S. Goosman (National, Waikato): Has it been tried? Mr Fraser: Yes. During the last two or three years 27,153 acres have been acquired. Compulsion as Last Resort Mr Fraser gave an assurance that no compulsion would be used except when three or more farms could be established where there was one at the present time. The case for compulsion was that no individual should be allowed to sit on land and lock it up and stand in the way of soldier settlers. Mr W. A. Bodkin (National, Central Otago), made a strong appeal for the right of landowners to take appeals to the Supreme Court. All recognised that compulsion had to be written into the law, he said, but it had to be accompanied by safeguards. Whatever Government was in office the pressure of public opinion would be so great that it would have to find land for soldiers, but in the process of getting the land let it see that no injustice was done to Individuals. Mr A. H. Nordmeyer (Labour, Oamaru), said there would have been no opposition to the Bill if it had not been for the activities of paid agitators who toured the country and had been active, especially in the Wellington province, in endeavouring to stir up political animosity on the part of the farming community. The debate was then interrupted and Mr Fraser, in reply to a question as to the future business of the session, said there would be a Finance Bill, one clause of which would be an extension of the pensions scheme to members of the Home Guard. The session should finish at the end of next week and the House would adjourn until February or March for the new session. The House rose at 11.46 p.m.