LAND SETTLEMENT

Evening Post, Volume CXXXV, Issue 150, 26 June 1943, Page 4

LAND SETTLEMENT

RETURNED MEN

GOVERNMENT CRITICISED A good deal of attention was given by members of the Opposition to the question of land settlement when the Imprest Supply Bill was before the House of Representatives yesterday afternoon. Mr. W. S. Goosman, member for Waikato, blamed the Government for the present high price of farm houses and improvements. There were some fairly large blocks in the Waikato available for rehabilitation, said Mr. Goosman, but the difficulty would be the cost. He mentioned land which was worth £25 to £30 an acre in its present state. If cut into small farms of 100 acres each the cost of homes, milking sheds, stores, and concrete yards would increase the cost by £30 an acre. Cut into smaller blocks, the cost would be at least £100 an acre. The improvements and roads would cost more than the land itself. He thought the Government should bear this in mind in any scheme it brought down. High costs were the result of -the Government's policy. Now it was up to the Government to solve the problem. Mr. H. G. Dickie (National, Patea) agreed with Mr. Goosman's contentions. Mr. A. S. Sutherland (National, Hauraki) said that the Land and Survey Department had been treated with scant consideration by the present Government. The office of Minister of Lands had been vacant ever since the member for Waimarino had left New Zealand for Washington. The present Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Barclay), who was Acting Minister of Lands, was already overworked and had no, time to spend on the business of the Lands and Survey Department. The Government should have appointed somebody else to the portfolio, a man with some knowledge of land settlement and development. A primary producing country such as New Zealand should never be without a competent Minister in charge of land. The Department was starving for lack of leadership. "I think the question of land settlement should be arresting the attention* of every member of this House at the present time," said Mr. D. C. Kidd (National, Waitaki), "but it seems to be a question the Government is afraid to face up to." It was not wise to wait until the men got back from the war and then get all hot and bothered about rehabilitating them. They should plan ahead wisely. Mr. Kidd said he could foresee many difficulties in the acquisition of land at its productive value. In the first place there were no standard farmers. Of two farmers owning adjacent properties, one might be a first-class farmer and the other a poor farmer. How was the productive value to be arrived at there? The man who was a good farmer was going to get the better price. LAND AGGREGATION. "I would.say that the actions of the present Government have made the rehabilitation of our soldiers very much more difficult than it would have been if the land problems of this country had been handled wisely," added Mr. Kidd. "I am referring to the regrouping of Government land. ... I say that more land aggregation has gone on under the Labour Government than under any Government that has held office." Mi*. J. Robertson (Government, Mas- ! terton): Nonsense. Instead of memy of these farms being regrouped, said Mr. Kidd, they should have been held for the returned servicemen. If the Government could rehabilitate the servicemen for a loss of £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 he would say it had done a good job. Members of the Opposition wanted to see the men get cheap places, but did not | want to see other people robbed to accomplish that. Mr. W. J. Broadfoot (National, Waitomo) said he thought the Government should be acquiring properties which even today could be bought at a price that, in his opinion, was below the productive value. There was diffidence about taking them over because of the shortage of fertiliser and fencing wire, but they could be farmed moderately in the meantime until those essentials became available.