NO DEPOSIT

Evening Post, Volume CXXXVI, Issue 2, 2 July 1943, Page 4

NO DEPOSIT

SOLDIERS AND LAND

GOVERNMENT POLICY ,

No deposit whatever would-bejre-quired from returned s°ld»ers_^ho would be placed on the land, '£»££*£ E. L. Cullen (Government, H*w*^ s Bay) when discussing the Government's land settlement policy to .the Budget debate in the House of Representatives yesterday J^temoon.^ MJr. Cullen is a member of the Rehabilitation Board. Mr CuUen said the Government had approved that any soldier applicant who desired training would be given facilities on training farms and there would be subsidies for farmers^ who would take on and train returned men. When those soldiers were competent they would be eligible^ to ply for farms and it was desirable that the best of land should be purchased-

There had been many inquiries as to what amount of money would be 'required by returned men to go on a i block of land. The soldier was the deposit. A soldier would be able to apply and go on a farm without any deposit or without six months' advance, as had been the case with soldiers after the last war. It was the first time in the history of New Zealand that any soldier could go on to a block of land without any deposit. An Opposition member: It was done in special cases last time. ' ■ Mr. Cullen: Very few. In the ballots after last war it .was impossible to get in unless you had a six months deposit. I had to do that myself. ACQUISITION OF I,AND. Mr. Cullen added that in his opinion, first-class land held by private individuals would be required, and that meant that the Government would have to acquire property after leaving the occupants enough for themselves and their families. No Government,could establish the land settlement policy without acquiring from the private individuals sufficient land for a good policy: Men who had been away longest should ! have the opportunity in the ballot for some of the best areas, and possibly, until the majority of the men returned and those opportunities could be given, there could not be a great deal of I land settlement in large areas. ■ A further part of the Government policy was that no soldier would be placed on a property where he could not get ail immediate return. At least 150 per cent, of the holdings should be in some form of cultivation. He knew the acquisition of land was going to be difficult. It was going to be difficult to say to families who had .held land for two or three generations, "Please we want portion of.your land for our returned men." "Please" was all that the Government would say. In that respect the co-operation of the land owners would-be needed; but if that co-operation was not given the Government would have to acquire first-class areas. PRODUCTIVE VALUE. Dealing with productive value, Mr. Cullen said that, speaking as an ordinary farmer, he . thought there was no one in the world who could declare the true productive value per acre ■of any land, but an estimate could foe made. | The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Holland): Is it intended to take any land at a price lower than-the cost of bringing that land into production? Mr. Cullen: It would be'most unfair to do that. I An Opposition member: Will yoii ! take any land below the price the vendor paid? ; "It all depends," replied Mr. Cullen. ! "Some vendors paid very high prices and unfortunately they have not proved a success. After all, we can only estimate the value of what you. can procure from it.' 5 , .

In reply to another Opposition query, Mr. Cullen said that as far as dairy land was concerned the guaranteed price would be taken into, consideration. ...'.