SMALL FARMS BILL

Wairarapa Times-Age, 28 November 1940, Page 6

SMALL FARMS BILL

PROTEST BY WAIRARAPA FARMERS SECURITY OF LAND TENURE THREATENED. RESOLUTION EXPRESSES DISTRUST & ALARM A protest against the provisions ol' the Small Inarms Amendment Bill was made by a meeting' of farmers of the Wairarapa. district, held yesterday afternoon in the Farmers’ Booms. Aiasterton. Mr Jltijzli Morrison. Wairarapa Provincial President of the Farmers’ Union, presided over ’ a large attendance. The meeting was addressed by Mr A. P. O’Shea. Dominion Secretary of the Farmers' Union, and Mr B. V. Cooksley, president of the Dominion Council of Commercial Growers. Mr O'Shea said the Small Farms Amendment Bill was one of the most far-reaching Bills ever brought in. He appreciated the tone of the Prime Minister's speech on the preceding' night that he was going to do the right thing. It was essential, however. that the law should be right in the first place, as if the powers objected to were there it might be difficult to restrain any future Government from exercising those powers. Mr O'Shea went on to refer to the provisions of the Lands for Settlement Act. which provided that land could be taken to a minimum of 400 acres of first-class land, whereas under the Small Farms Amendment Bill the Government could take the whole area. One man’s farm could be taken I and given to another. It was not suggested that the Government or Minister were going to do that, but it was not right that the power to do so should be given to any Government. They could not afford to take any risks. Thousands of acres of land had been taken for settlement, on which so far there 'were no settlers. Under the Small Farms Bill the Government did not have to settle the land taken but could farm it. A sum of £1,546,000 had been expended on land taken by the Small Farms Board and receipts were £351.000 from the 139,000 acres taken. He did not know that they should not ask for an inquiry about these lands. Lands had been purchased in the Hutt Valley at four times the Government valuation and he was quite sure that there was land in the Wairarapa which would be offered to the Government at no more than Government valuation. There was no question of opposing the settlement of soldiers, but it was maintained that any such scheme should be a considered plan, as it was held there might be difficulty about markets after the war.

CHAOS WITH TWO SYSTEMS. Referring to the provisions of the Lands for Settlement Act and those of the Small Farms Amendment Bill, Mi- O'Shea said it would lead to chaos if they had two systems of taking land on the Statute Book at the same time, as they would have if the Bill were passed, He proceeded to refer in detail to the provisions of the two measures. Under the proposed Bill, he said, owners were allowed to object only if part of their land were taken but if the whole of their land were taken they could not object. He quoted the opinion of Mr W. J. Sim. K.C.. on the provisions of the Bill, which he described as an invasion of constitutional practice. It was not merely a matter affecting farmers. Mr O'Shea suggested that the most serious aspect of the proposal was the interference with these constitutional rights. There were certain provisions in the Lands for Settlement Act that should be preserved in the Small Farms Bill. The real point about the Bill was not what was in it but what was cut out the rights of land owners whose lands were taken—rights which were wiped out. Under the Bill the value of the land would be what the land would fetch wholly for cash. There were few land dealings on that basis and that brought them back to the productive capacity. Under the Public Works Act a person was allowed five years in which to make a claim for compensation; whereas under the present Bill he was allowed only six months He did not think that was fair. What would happen if the person concerned were ill? If Mr Fraser really meant his praise of the farmers at the Manawatu Show, said Mr O'Shea, he had a good opportunity to show it in dealing with this Bill. He should give an assurance that he would meet the farmers, discuss the matter with them and adopt a reasonable course. If the Prime Minister did that, Mr O'Shea said, he was sure Mr Fraser would get the best brains in New Zealand to help him to find • a reasonable line of action and to find any land that might be required. If there was going to be conscription of wealth, it should be fair. “THE WRONG TYPE.”

Mr Cooksley said they should think of the type of administration that was going io administer the Bill. Those who had put forward the Hutt Valley housing and Kuku settlement plan, he maintained, were not the type to administer the proposed Bill. ' After referring to soil surveys conducted in the Hutt and Kuku, as the result of which farmers were told that the Hutt I land was deteriorating and the land at Kuku was most suitable for market gardening, Mr Cooksley went on to give the meeting an example of the economic reasoning of the administration which would carry out the provisions of the Small Farms Amendment Bill. It had proposed to erect houses on market.garden land at the Hutt. The cost of erecting four houses per acre on this land (the average number) plus the purchase price of the land, cost of reading, services, etc., was £7,000 per acre, from which an income was obtained of £312 per year. The same land, under market growing, produced £3OO per acre per year. Moreover, those houses would have to be written off in fifty years, leaving a land asset of .ElOOo'at the most. In the opinion of (he Kuku and Hutt Valley farmers, men who did that were not fit to be in charge of 'the Bill. There was a case todiiy, in which the Dominion president of' the Farmers’ Union wanted the wholehearted support of the farmers-one hundred per cent. It had been said I that Hie Farmers’ Union were making a fuss about, the whole matter and' he asked them to prove'that it was otherwise.

“DISTRUST AND ALARM.” The following motion was moved by Mr J. C. Cooper: “That this meeting of farmers of the Wairarapa district views with distrust and alarm the provisions of the Small Farms Amendment Bill. While we would welcome and assist in any sound scheme for the settlement of returned soldiers we consider that this Bill, while purporting to provide this, goes much further and strikes at the very root- of our present system of security of land tenure. We emphatically protest that the Government should introduce any measure which threatens this security and we fail to understand why the Government persists with this Bill which has antagonised the farmers throughout the country at the very time when they are called upon to produce to the utmost to meet the call from the Mother Country for primary produce.” Speaking to the motion. Mr Cooper said the Government had 100 per cent of the farmers behind it when it asked them to increase production. Here was a matter which touched on the fundamental principles in which farmers believed in. If that were attacked it might have very serious repercussions. There seemed to be a hurry in getting ready for returned soldiers; the war was far from being over. They might find that there were no markets for their produce when the war was over and it might be necessary to find some other outlet for the rehabilitation of soldiers. He believed it would be wiser to wait until they knew what the conditions would be. Mr Duncan McGregor seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Referring to remarks made by Mi’ Barclay, member for Marsden, Mr O'Shea said if the Government wanted to cut out estates, why short-cut the Lands for Settlement Act, which aimed at that?

“WILL GO RUSTY.” Mr R. W. Kebbell said the Government should be informed of the farmers' feelings. “We are getting a bit short in the grain,” said Mr Kebbell. “and we will not take an injustice. We will make any sacrifice to win the war, but if we think we are getting something pul over us we will go rusty. I for one will do everything I can to fight against this Bill.” OPPOSITION TO BILL DENIED.

Mr Ken Welch asserted that Mr O’Shea himself was causing unrest among the farmers. He believed the Government was only getting ready for the rehabilitation of returned soldiers. He was a small farmer and had two sons at the war and questioned whether there was any real opposition to the Bill. Mr O'Shea asked Mr Welch if he had studied the provisions of the Eill and the detailed criticisms of. them. He invited him to do so. and if Mr Welch did not then agree with him that the criticism was not unfair. Mr O’Shea said he would take no further part in the matter. Mr R. D. McKenzie, criticising the Government's policy, said the country wanted statesmen, not politicians. Mr Duncan McGregor, referring to ( Mr Welch’s remarks, said the Government was going about the matter the wrong way. No one was against the settlement of returned men on the land. | Mr Morrison said he did not want • the belief to gain ground that they did j not want soldiers to go on the land. I After the hist war many mistakes were made and^ these mistakes had! taught them to be cautious in the future. Any settlement of returned soldiers should be under a long term policy, a point which he specially emphasised. This Bill was not. a returned soldiers' Bill at all. A farmer was entitled to security in his job, which was his land.