SETTLING RETURNED SOLDIERS.

North Otago Times, Volume CV, Issue 13932, 14 July 1917, Page 2

SETTLING RETURNED SOLDIERS.

ACQUISITION OF ESTATES. GOVERNMENT>S' EXTRAVAGANT METHODS. SIR JOHN FINDLAY'S CRITICISM. , (Special to the Times,)

During his speech in the Address-in-Reply debate in the House of Representatives on Thursday night, Sir John Findlay indulged in some frank civicism of the Government's methods of acquiring land for the settlement of returned soldiers. 'The matter which was of cardinal importance to the soldier settling on 'the land was the price at which the land was purchased for the rent to be paid was. based upon the purchase money. Hence, said Sir John, it was directly to their interest that the land should be acquired at the lowest possible price. What provision did the Government make in 1910 to achieve that purpose? The speaker explained that under the Laud for Settlement Act, 1908, the Crown was empowered to take land compulsorily at- the value appearing on the'valuation roll—that is, for ihe unimproved value, improvements were valued by the Compensation Court, Formerly, in the earlier Land for Settlement Acts the compensation payable to an owner from.whom land was taken compulsorily was assessed in the same way as it was under the Public Works Act, which was by two assessors and' a jndgc, after hearing the evidence of witnesses. The result of that system was that the owner went round hij neighbours, and, impressing upon them that his case , to-day might be theirs to-morrow, he got their valuations of the owner's land. The higher they valued his land, the higher would the value of their land appear if theirs was taken—or if they desired, to sell it. Hence it was quite common to find that every neighbour of the man whose land was taken came as a witness and valued the land at Ihe most amazing prices, and the Crown had the very greatest difficulty in getting evidence to show the fair and reasonable price of the land in que-tion. it was tliia that led to the change in the law which fixed the price as that appearing in the Valuation Roll. The price as fixed bv the method prescribed by the Public Works Act ,was in almos! every case excessive, and that was why the law was changed. In lfllG the Government passed "The Discharged Soldiers Settlement Amendment Act, lfllfi,' 1 section ;i of which meant that all the bonrlits the landowner go; under the Land for Settlement Act were preserved to him; while that protection the Land for Settlement Aft gave the State (or here ultimately the discharged soldier) was taken awav under that-section, The owner, for 'example, could retain -100 acres of the best,of the land, but under the section quoted that owner was allowed to ignore the value upon which he hail paid taxes—the value which it must be assumed lie regarded as the fair market value, and claim what he liked for compensation, It was notorious that the Discharged Foldirrs Settlement Ac. had made a dead letter of that provision in the Land for Settlement

Act under which the Crown could take an estate at the Valuation Roll value, The Government had clearly and often declared lli.it henceforth laud would

.be taken only for discharged soldiers. Bui land so taken must have its value determined in accordance with the old and objectionable method of the Public Works Act, which was, after a long and bitter struggle, repealed in this

House. So that all land taken compulsorily inns; now be taken under the

old system so far as compensation was concerned, ft was also notorious that (lie pre-war valuations had not been

altered since the war began, except in a few cases, The owners were paying I!ie land tax on the old valuation; biu (lie Prime Minister (as Minister for Lauds) knew that owners who had been asked what price tliey wanted for their, land li.nl demanded from 50 per cent., even up to. 100 per cent., over the amount of ilie value as appearing on the Valuation Roll, They wanted the additional value created by the war—a value which would enormously dedine when Mie war was over, But if

the State had to pay through a Compensation Court award (arrived at linger I lie old vicious method of the Publie Works Act) a greatly inflated price for the land—upon whom had the loss involved to fall? Primarily upon the soldier pettier; for he had to pay in rent for that inflated price, Anil if,

as lime wont on, he found himsolf unable to pay that rent, and ho got a reduction, upon whom ultimately did

Ihe loss fall? Upon the tax-payers of ilie country. That meant, in final analysis, that the tax-payers of the country were '% this Discharged Soldiers Settlement Act bled to the extent the price was inflated to enrich in war times the land-owners. Could anyone justify such a measure?' Surely, Sir John said, he was warranted in saying that the Government outraged the ■pint of equality of sacrifice when it indulged the interests of the landowners at the expense of the people as a whole,

Sir John also referred to the treatment of Crown tenanis for some time ■part, saying he referred to' the tenant of land acquired under the Land for Settlement Act. That land was purelided by contract between the Crown and the owner. The price was arrived a: after the fullest and fairest invests cation by the' Crown officers, The tenants applied for it, and' by their application admitted ; that the price was fair. They entered, into the contract contained in the leases as regards the payment' of rent based upon the purchase price. The market for their produce had long been a rising one;

ami vet under the legislation 1 brought in by the Prime .Minister,, a iul which prevailed until a short time ago the tenant who drew a section,- and agreed to pay a rental based on the -purchase price paid by the Crown for the laud, could .as soon as his lease was signed apply for a reduction of the rent, and that reduction was determined by one Government officer. It was true the reduction could not be sought until after the lease had run three years, and it was determined by a board, But in the Canterbury district alone the reductions in the capital value of those tenants' Land for Settlement- holding, exceeded .tto,ooo, Tims either the Government paid .tofl,ooo too much for the land, or the tenants were being indulged most grossly and unfairly at the expense of the ratepayer. If a reduction of over £50,000 had been made in the .Canterbury district alone, what must the total reduction be for the whole of New Zealand? Surely hundreds of thousands of pounds, it was notorious that tenants who could really have fold the goodwill of their leases for a large sum had been granted these reductions.

Sir John Findlay then proceeded to refer to the settlement of soldiers on the two settlements of Porangahau and Tautaue. The settlement of each soldier on Porangahau, including the £SOO advanced to him, Ji»d cost the State £6200 each; and the Tuitane £5235 each. He then quoted the Agues giving the number of the auction by the soldier, the area anil cash price of each section, as follows:-- I PORANGAHAU BLOCK,

Section. Block Area, Cash Purchase of section. 2 XV. 01fi.0.00 £5200 3 XV. 610.0.00 5230 6 XV, 284.3.38 2430 1 XVI. 831.0.00 7000 2 XVI. 504.0.00 6300 3 XVI. 010.0.00 7070 4 XVI. 910.0.00 6750 5 XVI. 515.0.00 5650 Those figures, including £SOO cash advanced, represented au expenditure of £6260 for each. 'TAUTANE, 1 HI, 65C.0.00 £4740 . 1 IV. 752.0.00 4830

(including £SOO cash advanced £4235

each). To settle 13,000 soldiers, out of ali 'hose who returned during or after the war, at the same cost as those oil the Porangahau Block would involve New Zealand in an expenditure of £93,900,000. In the first place, said the speaker, the country could not possibly afford that, and in the second place, he asked, what about the equality of treatment? What correspond-

ing benefit was the State going to confer—or what sum was it going to spend —upon the remaining (say) 85,000 men who would return during and after the war? Were they going to have some kind of equality of treatment? The subject was vast and complicated; but surely (ho figures quoted showed amazingly extravagant methods. The .speaker said he was informed by a prominent resident of Wai ; ",iwn (who r •gave"liiiii'"n lot of information fibolit the settlement) that one of the soldier settlers on roraDgnliftu ivaS' I 'offereH £IOOO immediately after the ballot if and when he could transfer his section, While being in no mood of captions criticism, ami if the statements he made were accurate (and he was convinced they were), then, Sir John said, it was his dntv to call 1 the Government's attention to them,