SOLDIER SETTLER

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLVII, Issue 124, 23 April 1927, Page 8

SOLDIER SETTLER

ALLEGED UNFAIR TREATMENT. REPLY BY THE MINISTER. ! ~ WELLINGTON, April 23. Allegation made at a meeting of the Dairy farmers’ Union at Palmerston m on Thursday ttfat several returned soldiers had been unjustly bv the Government were brought under tbd notice of the Mimster of Lands (Hon. A. D. McLeod) the Mr W. G Short, was reported to have mentioned a soecific case of a settler at Rata was hadtaken up land there some years ago and in improvements had expended over £SOO. The farmer s net takings were stated to be practically, negligible after payment of rent. The farmer was now behind in his payments and it was declared had received notice leave hi# land. Mr Short contended that it was very Unfair treatment on the part of the Government to expel the settler from his holdings Without, compensating him for the improvements he had carried out. Members of the union were reported to have expressed agreement with Mr Short in regard to the unfairness of the Government in their treatment of the farmer. The Hon. A. D. McLeod made the following statement, after perusing the report referred to: - . ' , ‘•ln the first place, I wish to observe that the meeting indulged in a. general castigation of my department s administration in these matters, and then proceeded to cite one case. It is noticeable also that it carefully refrained from supplying the settler s -name. I may say, however, that some time -ago, on the recommendation of the Wellington Land Bo&rd, I gave my approval to tfe forfeiture of the interest of one of the soldier settlers in the Rata district, and, assuming that this is the case referred to, I can only the settler received every, consideration at the hands of the board. Notwithstanding a considerable ..reduction mthe rental value of his section, and a general adjustment of his charges by the nDominion Re-valuation' Board;' he failed, despite repeated requests and interviews, to meet his obligations to the Crown, or to give any indication that he recognised his responsibilities. “At the time forfeiture was effected he was one year in arrears with his payments, and as two years had been postponed, and he had proved a ver y unsatisfactory settler from the point or view of the department-,'. tlje Land Board decided to reoofnmepd forfeiture. This action was tobgp only after the board had considered" the matter on several occasions, and had failed to obtain from the settler any evidence that he would meet even burrent payments. - , “It does not appear, to be generallyknown,” added the Minister, “that all such cases are decided on tneir merits by a statutory board ot- four practical men, including one elected by the settlers themselves, with the Commissioner of Crown Lands as chairman. I gave very careful consideration to the board’s recommendation, and on the evidence placed before me had no alternative but to give my approval.’*