The Press Thursday, December 22, 1932. Land Settlement Schemes.

Press, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20736, 22 December 1932, Page 10

The Press Thursday, December 22, 1932. Land Settlement Schemes.

In a speech at the Canterbury Agricultural College prize giving, reported in The Press yesterday, Dr. Denham appealed to the Government to reconsider its adverse decision on the land settlement scheme put forward by the College Board last August. The Board's suggestion, it may be remembered, was that approved students of agricultural colleges and agricultural high schools who had worked satisfactorily on farms for at least two years should receive special consideration in the way of reduced interest for a period of five years on moneys advanced for land settlement by the Government. It is worth noting that a precisely similar suggestion is made in the report on juvenile unemployment by Mr A. E. Ansell and Mr S. G. Smith, summarised in The Press this morning. When the idea was brought to the notice of the Minister for Lands, Mr Ransom, he raised two objections. The'first was that the Government hfid no money to spare; and the second was that he could not approve " a special system of land " settlement for a particular section of " the community." The first objection would be more convincing if the Government had not already spent a large sum on settling unemployed men on the land and if it had not recently decided to enlarge this scheme very considerably. It can be suggested that if the Government is prepared to spend money on land settlement it will get a much better return on its outlay by adopting the Canterbury Agricultural College scheme than by experimenting with the vague and unsatisfactory scheme put forward by Mr Coates, There is, however, no reason why the first scheme should not be incorporated in the second. The Farms (Relief of Unemployment) dßill introduced this session contains powers for granting specially favourable leases, not merely to persons registered as unemployed, but ajso to " other persons with " respect to whom the Board is satisfied " that their settlement on the land " would tend to reduce unemployment " and who, in the opinion of the Board, "are suitable for employment in rural "occupations." It should be possible fpr the Board, acting under this clause, to assist trainees of agricultural colleges to take up land. The Minister's other objection to the scheme—that it involves drawing a class distinction—is ludicrous. If discriininfitidfl. between men who are trained and men who are untrained is a class distinction, then the more class distinctions that are raised the better it will he for the country. It need hardly be said that students at agricultural colleges can seldom claim other privilege except that of knowledge.