LAND FOR EX-SERVICEMEN

Auckland Star, Volume LXXIV, Issue 110, 11 May 1943, Page 2

LAND FOR EX-SERVICEMEN

EXPERIENCE after the last war in settling ex-servicemen on the land has rightly implanted a conviction in the public mind that the mistakes made then must not be repeated. The most serious mistake, it is universally admitted, lay in the acquisition of land at "boom" prices. The result was that when export prices fell it became impossible for a large number of ex-servicemen and other farmers to meet their commitments. Rents had to be remitted, and ultimately the values of the settlement land had to be "written down." The State, which had bought the land, lost heavily, but the financial cost of the mistake was not the greatest. The greatest costs were paid by the ex-servicemen in worry, frustration and disillusionment, and not seldom in hardship and deprivation. There is a determination in the community to-day that all this shall not happen again, but so far few practical measures are evident which will prevent its happening again. As in other matters, good intentions are not enough. Two important views on what should be done have been published this week. The first was expressed by Mr. Holland as the policy of the National party; the second by Mr. D. V. Bryant, who spoke fiom practical experience gained in the work of the "VVaikato Land Settlement Society. Both are agreed, as indeed everyone agrees m principle, that, the ex-servicemen's commitments should be based on the productive value, and no more, of the land on which" he settles. If this object is achieved, obviously the greatest costs of past mistakes, the non-financial costs, will not have to be paid again. The problem then becomes one of acquiring land at its productive value. As to this, Mr. Holland sa y s that if the cost of the land when developed is £30 an acre, and its productive value is assessed at £28, the State should pay the difference. There would be little dissent frcm this proposal if the illustration given by Mr. Holland were likely to be typical. „If the State could settle ex-servicemen on land at a cost of £2 per acre it would be foi tunate, but experience suggests that the difference between market value ana productive value is likely to be much greater than £2 per acre, although for various reasons it is improbable that market values will rise to the extravagant heights known after the last war. The important featuie of Mr. Holland's proposal is that under it the ex-serviceman would not suffer from inflated values, while the State would take its loss at the beginning instead of the end. The proposal made by Mr. Bryant differs from Mr. Hollands in two important respects. First, while Mr. Holland evidently has in view the acquisition of some, though not necessarily all, undeveloped land Mr. Bryant affirms that the only way in which the Dominion can fulfil' its promise to the soldiers is "by providing accessible and highlyimproved land." Secondly, he says that sufficient such land is available, and that it should be compulsorily acquired at productive-value prices. The importance of the principle involved in this proposal is appai ent, but there must be some doubt on the score of practicality. Mr. Bryant has in mind that many farmers have more land than they require, and they could surrender part of it; but would not this involve, m perhaps numerous instances, the surrender by farmers of pieces of their properties in order to make one farm for an ex-serviceman? Before the question of compulsory acquisition is disputed, it would seem essential to discover just what could be achieved by it. That Mr. Bryant recognises this is shown by his statement that the first i equii ement is a survey, of the land available. In this also he agrees with Mr. Holland. There is too much discussion in .general terms of this whole question. Fact-finding is a necessary preliminary to its discussion and solution.