MILLIONS "WELL LOST"

Evening Post, Volume CIV, Issue 11, 13 July 1922, Page 6

MILLIONS "WELL LOST"

The Government's policy of land settlement in general, and of soldier settlement in particular, was defended in the House of Eepresentatives on Tuesday night by the Minister of Lands, Mr. Guthrie, and by Mr. A. D. M'Leod, M.P. for Wafrarapa. Mr. M'Leod's was the more efiective defence, because he took the bull by the horns. He is reported as saying that if it is found hereafter that the soldiers have been satisfactorily settled on the land "at a loss of some £3,000,000 or £4,000,000, the money would be well lost, or well spent." In other words, if the loss does not exceed four millions,' the Eeform Government will be entitled ;to put a feather in its cap. [The country, we think, ought to be grateful to Mr. M'Leod for this very clear definition of successful la.nd settlement. The public knows now that when' the Government, spends £8,792,560 on purchase of private lands, and £3,966,630 on purchase of stock and improvements (Mr. Guthrie's figures), its settlement operations will reflect first-rate business ability and a high degree of kindly feeling if that portion of the loss which the soldier-settlers are incapable of bearing is restricted to any number' of millions not exceeding four. Armed with this standard of measurement, it is easy to apply a test to Governmental settlement operations anywhere or everywhere, and people will know what to expect and what to be surprised at. Where a 25 per cent, loss occurs— well, the seller at any rate did all right. But a loss over and above that limit will call for comment, and a 50 per cent, loss will begin to be serious. Thus a standard of criticism, suitable to political exigencies, may be simply and speedily built up. Mr. M'Leod's argument, 'if we understand it aright, is that the Government was compelled to pay the market value of the land, and that, whatever the loss, the Government is not to blame. Presumably the market is to blame, because it presented its peak to the Government, and then turned resolutely against the buyer. Assuming that it is impossible for a Government to buy at less than the market value, Mr. M'Leod argues that no other Government would have bought any better, and might have bought worse. TJntil the details of the transactions are known, it is impossible to form an' opinion whether the Government's buying, from the standpoint of buying on a peak market, was skilful or unskilful ; but it can at any rate be said that there is no evidence in favour of the theory that a Liberal Government would have done any better, or would have committed more or less of what Mr. M'Leod calls " mistakes." We can find in Mr. Wilford's speeches nothing to encourage the hope that he would have been either a better buyer on market values, or that he would have found a means of buying below market values and at economic values. When Mr. M'Leod says that buying below market values would be " spoliation," he appears to voice the view not only of the Reform Government but of a Liberal Government if one existed. All we can say is that if, according to Eeform and Liberal policies, there is no means of buying land savo buying on the peak of the' market, then it would be better that the Government should not buy at all. State land-purchase that claims a. 25 per cant, or. 60

per cent, margin for accidents is no effeotive road to closer settlement.

Though the Minister showed arrears of rent, interest, and prin-cipal-payments to the amount of nearly half-a-million, the ultimate loss remains an unknown factor, and the same may be said of the ultimate number of forfeitures. Meanwhile, what is to be done? The Government says that the time is not ripe for general revaluation, because prices and values are not stabilised. Its critics imply that the Government's real purpose is to postpone the pruning till after the General Election, and that the proposed Commission is also a device to side-track the issue until the appeal to the people, is over. Our own opinion is that a period of unstable conditions is unsuitable for any general revaluation that professes to be final, but there are various points on which a Commission might well report before the election, and so disarm much of the criticism noted above. For instance, it is probably true that the neediness of needy soldiers is not relatively the same; that some need more relief than others ; and therefore that the relieving authority should have discretionary and discriminative power. But as the.power to discriminate in the granting of relief is liable to be abused, and as no human discretion is infallible, an interim report of the Commission bearing on this administration, and on various complaints against it, should be made available as soon as possible. Departmental officers who have to weed out " lead-swingers," and to protect the interests of wives against husbands, have no sinecure. Probably on the whole their exacting work ig very well done. If so, let the Commission record the fact.