SMALL FARMS BILL

Evening Post, Volume CXV, Issue 38, 15 February 1933, Page 5

SMALL FARMS BILL

PASSED BY HOUSE

PROTECTION FOR OWNERS

LABOUR MOTION LOST

After, the: adoption of [some mirior amendments;to give further protection to owners and occupiers of land, the Small Farms (Relief of Unemployment) Bill, .providing for the settlement of men. with limited means on land at present occupied but -not adequately worked, passed its third reading in the House of Representatives yesterday afternoon. A Labour amendment for the'recommittal of the Bill, moved as a.'protest against the revenue for the scheme' being derived from the Unemployment. Eund instead'of the Public Account, was defeated. The clause dealing with the compulsory acquisition of land which is not being adequately used has been redrafted to ensure the Minister that the occupier as well as the owner receives notice from the Minister of his intention to arrange for its disposal and also to give the occupier as "well as the owner, the right, within 28 days to appeal to a Magistrate against the acquisition. The decision of .the Magistrate shall not bo final, and the. owner or occupier will have the right within fourteen days to appeal against that decision to the Supreme Court. / ' Where mortgaged land is to be acquired or disposed of by lease, the board to be set up under the legislation is to give 28 days'; notice of that intention to the mortgagee, and the board will be obliged to. consider • objections and representations.' '. • MOBTGAGEE'S RIGHTS. > Explaining clause 15, which refers to special provisions concerning mortgaged lands, the Minister of Finance (the Rt. Hon. J.y (x.-, Coates), said that it was left open'to the mortgagee to make his.objection direct to the board. ■ ■'..- The amendment' was : criticised by Mr. W. P. .Eiidean (Government, Parnell)j who said; he considered that the clause: did not [go far. enough. He submitted that the mortgagee's rights , might be prejudiced. .-' Mr. Coates said he was j bound to admit that the; Bill might .be running across the- rights of' the mortgagee, but only to a "small extent. He pointed out.that the Mortgagors and Tenants Relief-Act was. in operation, and, fur; tlier,.that.it-was in the interests of the mortgagee if closer, settlement were carried out.. The settling of men on the land "would[ definitely improve the mortgagee's: interests, arid. that would have to be taken into consideration. Mr. W. J. Brpadfopt (Government, Waitomo) said that the law must meet the [times. Heconsidered that the mortgagee would: benefit to a very considerable extent. ■ . . ' . In reply to,a question from Mr. W. Nash (Labour, Hutt) as to the preference -the first mortgagee received, Mr. Goates,..saKl. that in the event of the rent ..being able' to • meet- -only the first mortgage, then, the other mortgagees did-not have any. right. :, Mr. Nash: Assuming. that there is something :for the first mortgagee, and a surplus, is there anything to safeguard the ; second mortgagee's rights? Mr.:. Coates: It only provides for the first mortgagee, but if there is a surplus, the .other mortgagees come in. .RECOMMITTAL MOVED. v Contending that the administration of-the Bill i should-be a charge on the Public Account and not on the Unemployment :i Fund," Mr. M. J. Savage' (Labour,: Auckland West) moved that! the_[Bill be recommitted. He said the seriousness of the position would be1) appreciated-when it was realised that! persons other'than those who-were re/ gistcred unemployed would become a charge on, the fund. He was appre-hensive-of .further cuts in the relief allocations, with consequent aggravated distress. Winter was approaching, and .there would be a drain on the Unemployment Fund. -.'. Mr.: b; Semple (Labour, Wellington .East)[said that-the Minister had stated that he could show the House that the charge on the Unemployment Fund would not reduce the allocations. The levy at. present; was-a direct tax on the unemployed, [and he co"ntended~fhat it should be va levy on the community. ; Mr. Coates stressed the point that the "Unemployment Fund had been used for finding work and for making an opening for the' unemployed. A total of 500 had been settled under the socalled • ten' acre scheme on blocks up to 60 or, 70 acres, and 50 per cent, of them were now no charge on the.Unemployment Fund.- It was estimated that the present, legislation'would result in very material savings to the -Unemployment Fund.: Till the farm started to make ; a return, the highest, weekly cost estimated ;Was 27s 6d. Mr. Semple: ■ You will have to pay rent and,sustenance for some, time. - ■'; Mr.,, Coptes: Quite likely, but. the maximum will.not be[ more than:27s 6d. At -present, 'the \ weekly amount being paid'-was ,30s [to 335,;. said the Minister. Mr. -W. Nash: ■■ Are:you limiting.the rent-payment i to | £20ayear? [ Mr. Cpites:; Thetotal cost is limited to,; I -think, £30 a year; that covers everything. '.-.':'''' Where, a man .had capital, he would be. .assisted by the -legislation, but no relief would be given to the, Unemployment Fund. The legislation was different from existing legislation •in ..that it enabled the State to "make arrangements on1, behalf of the unemployed, and the machinery could be used by anyone'rwho desired to become a-farmer. : __ As ; showing the effect of the legislation, Mr. Coates said that the measure had-already been severely criticised :by landowners, who did not like the principle involved. Mr."Coates said he did notiagree with their..views; he thought the: objectors ,were sufficiently safeguarded. He had received between 8000 and 9000 applications from men desyrous of being settled on the land. Mr. :W. E. Parry (Labour,. Auckland Central) A said that there were many weaknesses ;in connection with the administration, of unemployed funds, and they were net going to have any more. Well-to-do: farmers, who could afford to pay for labour, were taking advantage of; the subsidy on farm labour. Before, they were through with the winter, they were-going to be at their wits' end as to how they'would meet the position, arid all care had to be taken-m the, expenditure of the fund. Land'settlement should, and could, be made.to,stand upon its own feet. _ Mr. A.[ J.-Stallworthy (Independent, Jiden)-. said .that a fund of £500,000 had already been provided for the scheme, and they had. the assurance from the Minister that the Bill would not place an additional burden on the Unemployment Fund. He intended to . give, the Minister the fullest opportunity to try out his scheme. . Mr.-E. J.-Howard (Labour, Christchurch South) said that many farmers were .waiting to walk off their land, and they might want to come under the scheme. They could double production in-New Zealand in five years without putting another man on the land. Mr. Coates: That is romancing. v Mr. Howard: AH our reports say that it .could-be done. Howeyerj vthere was plenty of work that; could'be[ done, but it should not be made a charge on. the. Unemployment Fund/said Mr. Howard. The motion for recommittal was rejected; by t [42-votes, to lp, and the Bill was-read' a -third time and passed."