SETTLEMENT COST

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22314, 26 April 1947, Page 3

SETTLEMENT COST

“LOADINGJTHE DICE" UNECONOMIC OUTLAY “At first sight this proposal may seem to be loading the dice against the soldier settler.” said Mr./A. Steele, addressing Thursday’s annual meeting of the Gisborne branch of the Federated Farmers, on a proposal that all expenditure on farm settlement lands should be capitalised and loaded on the land, to act as a check on uneconomic expenditure. , Mr. Steele explained, however, that he was concerned at the evidence that money was being expended uneconomically in land development for soldier settlement. The tendency was to create fictitious values for materials and labour, which would affect the whole farming population. He stated that he had heard that matai posts . were being used in fencing, for instance, and the effect of this would be that the settlers in a few year's would find their fences flat on the ground. Government departments had long purses, and if the excess expenditure was put on the cost of the land and not written .off flie departments would have to justify tneir expenditure. Messrs. C. H. Cooper and H. B. Bull opposed the motion,/the former on the grounds that the proposal was dangerous for the farmers’ organisation, and the latter on the ground that the policy of the Government was that the new settlers would be charged only the real production value of the land. This policy had been strongly supported by the Returned Services' Association, and that body had given deep consideration to the mattet. Mr. C. H. Williams said that Mr. Steele’s proposal was an attack on the wrong line at a possible abuse. He could not support it in its present form. Mr. H. M. White also opposed Mr. Steele's cuggestion, holding that nothing should be said or done to place any obstacles in the way of Kiwi settlement. He said that the departmental officers had a very difficult job, and they needed assistance rather than criticism if they were to get anything done. The actual need was for speed in development of settlement blocks, even if it did mean costs which in normal times would be considered prohibitive. Mr, Steele, replying, stated that he had realised the subject was controversial. and that his purpose had been to secure protection for the settlers rather than to place obstacles in their way. It was obviously wrong that the settlers should be asked to take over and maintain developments secured by uneconomic expenditure on the part of the departments concerned. The moiion was defeated decisively.