Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

Wairarapa Times-Age TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 1940. TAKING THE FARMERS’ LAND.

INTIMATING, a clay or two ago, that the Government intends to proceed with the Small Farms Amendment. Bill when the session of Parliament is resumed this week, the Minister of Lands (Mr Langstone) stated in general terms that there was no question of the confiscation of land and that a fair price was to be paid for any land acquired lor the rehabilitation 01. soldiers. As has been pointed out at meetings of protest held by farmers in many parts of the Dominion, however, the Government is proposing to make far-reaching changes in the existing law relating to the acquisition of land. According to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hamilton), the Bill now brought, down is loaded against the farmer because it proposes to take away his right to substantiate his claim to his land. Under the Small Farms Act passed in 1933, the Small Farms Board had power to take land which was not being adequately farmed and to fix the price to be paid for it. The owner, however, could object on two grounds—the first that the land was being adequately farmed, and the second that not sufficient land was left to provide adequately for needs of the farmer and his family. As the Dominion Secretary of the Farmers’ Union (Mr A. P. O’Shea) has pointed out, the Small Farms Act of 1933 was passed purely for that purpose of providing small farms for unemployed men and was not designed or intended to be used for the general settlement of land. Now, apparently, it is intended to expand the Small Farms Act. into a measure of general settlement, and in doing that to deprive occupiers of the right, of ultimate appeal to the Supreme Court, leaving them with access only to an assessment tribunal presided over by a magistrate. Exactly how far the Government proposes to extend the operation of the Bill now before Parliament, is not clear. The Minister of Lands has said that the Bill “did not in any way interfere with the acquisition of land under the Lands for Settlement Act or with the provisions for taking land under the Public Works Act.” It seems obvious, however, that the Bill proposes to clothe the Government with far-reaching powers which, once enacted, could be used in. an arbitrary and objectionable way—for example, in depriving an occupier of land which he was farming adequately and wished to retain. The Farmers’ Union is on firm ground in contending that a mere disclaimer by the Government of any desire or intention to make an unjust or arbitrary use of the powers that are sought in no way justifies these powers being enacted. A bad Jaw is not made good by a profession of good intent on the part of the Government seeking to have it passed. No one seems even to have attempted to make out a case for conferring on the Government vaguely defined, but far-reaching and arbitrary powers where the acquisition of land is concerned. In the extent to which the existing law is inadequate or unsatisfactory it. should be amended in explicit terms and with positive effect, The Small Farms Bill rather obviously moves in the opposite direction. Apart, for example, from the abolition of the right of appeal to the Supreme Court, the Bill, on the Minister’s showing, proposes to do away with the right of a farmer to retain an adequate amount of land for his own use if the rest of his holding is taken by the State. Under the. Lands for Settlement Act, the Government, in acquiring land, is required Io leave in the hands of the occupier 400 acres of first-class land or larger areas of second-class or third-class land. A right of this kind, if it is to be varied at all, most certainly should be varied on adequate grounds and in explicit terms. If there is anything in the contention of the Minister of Lands that the Bill before Parliament does not in any way interfere with the acquisition of land under the Lands for Settlement Act, it should be possible at least to define with precision the scope and purpose of the proposed legislation. To institute two methods of land acquisition which might overlap even in part—one of them embodying rights and safeguards and the other denying these rights and safeguards—evidently would give rise to both confusion and injustice.

SOLDIER SETTLEMENT POLICY. r pHE need of providing land for soldiers who wish to take up farming when they return from the war in no way weakens, but rather gives added force to the demand now being made for open and frank methods in dealing with the law relating to the acquisition of land. It should be determined firmly at the outset that soldiers shall be established on holdings only in conditions giving them every reasonable opportunity of getting financially on their feet. In protesting against any attempt to link up this question with the issues raised by the Small Farms Bill, Mr Hamilton has said: — I can only say—speaking, I know, for the whole of the farming community—that everyone will, be glad to give a hand to, settle the returned soldiers on the land. With a proper approach to the farming community, the Minister will get all the land he wants at reasonable prices. All of us would be glad to help him. It must be hoped that Mr Hamilton is right, but it cannot be forgotten that similar hopes entertained at the end of the 1914-18 war were tragically disappointed. The well-intentioned desire to settle as many returned soldiers as possible on the land led to a tremendous booming and inflation of land values and to subsequent disastrous collapse, the effects of which have not even now exhausted themselves. Even, with purchase money amounting to millions written off by the State, many soldier settlers had to abandon their holdings or were left in an unenviable plight. It would be vastly better to determine that our soldiers must be re-established in civil life elsewhere than on the land than to allow any similar state of affairs to develop when this war comes to an end. Even had the boom prices of the last war period lasted indefinitely, much of the soldier settlement of that time would still have been resting on hopelessly insecure financial foundations. If frank and open dealing is needed where any proposed changes in the law relating to the acquisition of land are concerned, it is needed still more in determining the conditions in which soldier settlers are to be placed on the land. In common honesty, full account must be taken, not only of such difficulties as dairy farmers now find themselves labouring under on account of rising costs, while returns remain stationary, but of the definite possibility and likelihood that after this war. as after the last, there may be a world fall in the prices of primary produce. If justice is to be done to our soldiers, it is first of all necessary that land should be acquired for them only at prices taking full and fair account of the returns that are likely to be obtained from it. REPORTS IN CONFLICT. TT is a most unsatisfactory and undesirable state of affairs that reports issued by the 8.8. C. should be denied in Australia aiid New Zealand. This position has arisen with regard to 8.8. C. broadcasts on Sunday stating that British troops which had landed in Greece included Australians and New Zealanders. This statement was repeated by the 8.8. C. last evening. When the matter was referred to the Government in Wellington. however, it was announced officially that “it can be authoritatively stated that there is no truth in the London report that New Zealand troops have been sent to Greece." Later it was stated that there was no authoritative information to hand on the subject and that if any was received it would be made known immediately. The Australian Minister for the Army, Mr Spender, has also denied "that A.I.F. men are in Greece in anything like strength." He added that it was possible that there might be a few Australian details in Athens, but that he had received no information. The matter should bo cleared up definitely and without delay. In view, amongst other things, of the deliberate and unscrupulous falsification of German and Italian reports, it is very necessary that British reports should be strictly accurate.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/WAITA19401126.2.15

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Wairarapa Times-Age, 26 November 1940, Page 4

Word count
Tapeke kupu
1,419

Wairarapa Times-Age TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 1940. TAKING THE FARMERS’ LAND. Wairarapa Times-Age, 26 November 1940, Page 4

Wairarapa Times-Age TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 1940. TAKING THE FARMERS’ LAND. Wairarapa Times-Age, 26 November 1940, Page 4

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert