VIGOROUS SPEECH BY NEW MEMBER ROUSES HOUSE.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18803, 4 July 1929, Page 13

VIGOROUS SPEECH BY NEW MEMBER ROUSES HOUSE.

" CRITICISM OF REFORM » GOVERNMENT SHOULD BRING LIVELY REPLIES.

1 (Special to the “Star.”) WELLINGTON, July 3. A vigorous land settlement speech by Mr Bodkin (Central Otago) was a feature of the opening of the Address-in-Replv debate, in the House of Representatives to-night. The mover of the motion, as a new member, is usually heard with attention without interrup tion, but the Central Otago representa tive put such emphasis into his condemnation of the former Government’s land policy that the Reform Opposition was provoked to show its dissent, and the speech in due course will produce lively replies. It gives promise of an interesting debate of long duration. It seemed difficult to realise that stich a thing as unemployment was possible j in New Zealand, declared Mr Bodkin. in moving the Address-in-Reply motion. New Zealand had a population of one ' and a half million, its accumulated ~ wealth totalled lmndreds of millions last year’s export was of record value, c yet unemployment was its greatest doj mestic problem A study of the econo r mic situation .showed it was hopelessly ‘ unbalanced. Secondary industries bad \ failed to absorb more workers, and thousands had come in from outside. He believed he could demonstrate that the main difficulty was due to the failure ' y of the primary industry to absorb the ’ number of employees it could reason ably be expected to take. “In other words.” said Mr Bodkin. “ it means an f absence of land policy.” Why had the • primary industries failed to absorb - their proper quota of workers? Had 2 the farmers failed? The answer was - that the excess of £12,000,000 export? showed wonderful activity Transport conditions were excellent, and the organisation of export and marketing - was never better in the country’s hisI tory. The question still remained, why . had farming failed to absorb more . workers? There was not sufficient sci- ’ cntific farming, and any amount of openings for development were not , utilised. Our farm lands •would carry . five times more population.

; SIXTEEN' YEARS WITHOUT POLICY. Nobody could contend that subdivision was impossible, or that the men of the Dominion were the wrong class for land works. The only reason why young men anxious to get on the land had failed to realise their ambition was because the Reform Government for sixteen years had no land settlement policy. Its administration of Crown ; lands in Otago alone demonstrated that contention. The late Government had ! alienated over a million acres of Crown lands in that province on lease for thirty-five years to ninety-two appli cants. The late Government was not concerned over the opportunities for a couple of hundred families being able to go on this land. It only considered the interest of ninety-two squatters, whose leases were expiring. Hundreds of small grazing run leases had expired, but in no case had subdivision been carried out. The Government had actually allowed wealthy syndicates to hold large areas. One of the most glaring instances was that of a man j who contested a southern constituency : in the late Government’s interests. He j owned so much land that he could ! not a declaration in support of any Crown land transfer to himself of 35.000 acres of pastoral country he wished to acquire It was under two . titles, and as he could not take one his wife took a title, and he formed a j limited liability company, the share- • holders being his wife and himself, and I the transfer of the second title was authorised by the late Administration. If that landowner had arranged with a private individual to be a dummy in securing this land both would be liable to heavy penalties. The effect of this arrangement on avoidance of 1 income tax was that his wife put in ' one return, including all the exemptions she could claim. He- put in a separate return, and the limited company was another entity for taxpaying purposes. A Government which would ■ lend itself to such a transaction had, he declared, no sense of responsibility to the people and no sense of duty. i NO CHANCE TO EXPAND. i Was it any wonder with such in- 1 stances as these that the primary in- 1 dustrv never had a chance to expand and absorb workers? He knew of an estate in his own district, comprising '<■ three large farms, wftich came on the t market on the owner’s death. They ( were mopped up by large landowning s neighbours, and if they were unable 1 to get a title they stipulated with the vendor to get the freehold, and then 1 transfer to the purchaser. \ The new Government should be con- y 1 gratulated on what it had already achieved in land settlement. The f Prime Minister and Minister of Lands t had already made it clear that they were determined fo have land Their v policy must be a big one, and it would be conducted by big men, because t they had to catch up on sixteen years’ arrears. fie hoped the Government, s m addition to compulsory acquisition, c would impose such a heavy graduated ( land tax that it would be commercially impossible to hold large areas. “ (Reform laughter.) “ The leader of the Opposition may t’ well feel embarrassed,” continued Mr c Bodkin, ” because he is in the position of a sinner being found out by his a sins.” (Laughter.) Mr Martin (Raglan): Now you are si stirring them up. b Mr Bodkin: We recognise franklj* n

that every landowner is entitled to a certain amount of land.

Mr Dickie (Patea): Three acres and a cow. (Ironical Reform laughter.) Mr Liodkin: A good farmer who scientifically works a small area does better than the aggregator who does' not properly work his large holding.