STATE LOANS TO SOLDIERSETTLERS

Evening Post, Volume XCIII, Issue 48, 24 February 1917, Page 4

STATE LOANS TO SOLDIERSETTLERS

The inadequacy of the Government's 1 advance to soldier-settlers was the subject of a discussion on Thursday by the Advisory Board of the War Relief Federation. The subject certainly is not new. It was foreseen afc least a, year ago that in many cases the Government's advance of £500 (maximum) would be inadequate for the purposes of a. moneyless soldier, and the position was outlined in detail, about that time, in a, ■series of articles on soldier-settlement, appearing in this paper. But apparently not much has been done, fop ""in February, 1917, the Board is found discussing a problem all the essential features of which were reepgnised in February, 1916. The central fact is that, owing to the prices of land, of stock, and of material, it is now much more expensive than it was formerly to start farming, particularly to start farming on bush land; and where the settler is a soldier with physical as well as financial limitations, the task is harder still. From the inception of the soldier-settle-ment scheme it has been pointed out that, on the average, this, class of settler has a better chance on land which is accessible and partly improved, and which is therefore dear, than on. more remote and rougher land, which is (comparatively) cheap. Unfortunately, the Government-does not deal largely in the first class of land, because it, feels itself unable to finance' the purchase^of such a dear commodity, and because "the Government and its predecessors have? carefully avoided any estate-breaking measure—either of taxation, resumption, or compulsory sale—that could be made really effective in the way of breaking lip tho larger and richer estates. Consequently, the Government has sought the line of least resistance, buying a bit here and a bit there, and working into the scheme, as its backbone, those largo Native blocks which a wiso Maori land purchase policy had fortunately made available shortly after tho beginning of tho war. That is to say, tho Government's policy has opened up an insuffifiiensy of Uis battm- ekss laud te which

diers have to be sent to the more remote, rougher, ■ and more or less unsuitable) sections. The prime causes of the trouble are political timidity in the past, and a sense of financial stringency in the present. But if the Government cannot find money to put the soldier-settler o& the better land (or if, as may be, the demands of the owners thereof ore prohibitive) surely tho Government might increase . the advance to the soldier-settler on the less favourable section. This contention brings us back to the principle laid down by certain members of the Advisory Board on Thursday, and by the Evening Post a year ago. Mr. W. P. Kirkwood and one or two other members of the Board adduced figures and instances and arguments to confirm a very clear case, and the fact was once more demonstrated that, after making certain preliminary improvements, the Government's £500 advance leaves no adequate margin for stocking and other requirements. As wo can hardly hope to see the present Government grapplo in a radical manner with the problem of breaking up the better class areas, we can only plead once again the necessity of giving the soldier-settler, in whatever place he is planted, sufficient financial tether to keep him out of the paralysing grip of excessive rates of interest. With regard to an alleged administrative blunder in the misplacing of a one-armed soldier, we do not know the facts, and our general experience of Lands Department and Land Boards administration is fawurable; but the case does not rest on any isolated instance The limitations of the system—for whifh politicians are responsible^—are such that no administration could overcome, though, it might mitigate, the resulting disadvantages; and the only remedy is to loosen the State purse-strings and to increase the maximum advance. To our mind, the argument that a soldier going 'on the land is no rmore entitled to a loan than is the soldier who opens a shop, has no weight. Land-settlement is, for the State, an. end in itself; and that is the reason why the Government has.for many years lent money to settlers as settlers, and not to shopkeepers as shopkeepers. A soldier who opens a shop may be entitled to assistance as a soldier, but the soldier on the land is soldier and settler too. And to plant him there without giving him a fair ohance is to render the soldier, and also the State, a complete disservice.