LAND SETTLEMENT

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXXVI, Issue 22868, 11 February 1949, Page 4

LAND SETTLEMENT

Sir,—Your paper of Wednesday set out at some length details concerning various land settlement blocks shortly available to returned servicemen by ballot. The National Party, Labour Party and the R.S.A., too, have all undoubtedly been trapped by their own propaganda into recognising a most iniquitous state of affairs. Firstly, on what democratic principle should any Government or political party vest greater benefits in one section of returned servicemen than in another merely by virtue of the servicemen’s class of occupation? Also, why should the R.S.A. spend so much of its time, money and endeavour towards fostering the interests of a farming minority among its members? Should not the R.S.A. strive for some equality of distribution of the Government’s largesse? Does the average citizen and taxpayer realise that some of these farming servicemen are to be handed £25,000 enterprises under the guise of “rehabilitation.” Let me illustrate, by taking the 1478acre block on Hiwinui quoted by you. Hiwinui cost the Crown £9 10s per acre, and this particular section is one of the best on the whole block. Add a new dwelling, woolshed, outbuildings and subdivisional fencing, and it is certain the cost on today’s market will be £l9£20,000. Then, this serviceman station owner will require 2570 sheep and 240 cattle, so that you will see there will be no change out of £25.000. This is not an isolated example as I think there are other blocks on both Hiwinui and Hihiroroa equally as expensive and, what is also interesting, they are to be settled on quite a different principle. It would be illuminating if you could make available as a news item from the particular Government Department or the R.S.A. the exact terms upon which the Hiwinui and Hihiroroa Blocks are due for settlement. I have heard that the men who balloted into blocks in 1947 go into possession without paying a penny deposit, whereas the 1949 ballotee is met with the hurdle of a substantial deposit. In the case of the previously discussed 1478-acre block it is £7350 for the freehold. This seems to be another inequality in this misconceived business. There is one other very important

point too, and that is the general understanding that these settlers are to get substantial discounts, i.e., on a £25,000 block they would go in at, say, £15,000. If this is so, it is the same as if the serviceman had £IO,OOO of his own money and bought the block direct from the owner—£lo,ooo to nothing for the returned shepherd; a £IOO furniture loan for the returned townsman. In assessing the values of these various blocks I make no account of the substantial overhead costs to the taxpayer in departmental supervision, valuers, etc. It would be interesting, but I can hardly expect you to supply them, to learn the total in numbers and salaries of the valuers, farm supervisors stock supervisors, etc., now employed in the vast land nationalisation machine that is operating so extensively in this district, CRITICAL