THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 1919. THE SETTLEMENT LOAN.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LVI, Issue 17257, 5 September 1919, Page 6

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 1919. THE SETTLEMENT LOAN.

The loan authority which the Government nnfls it necessary to take for the settlement of returned soldiers is surprisingly large, but, subject to the single provision that the money is wisely spent, the country will face the responsibility cheerfully and still deem itself the debtor of the men who saved its honour and assured its existence. The bald statement that £12,500,000 is required for carrying out the provisions of the Discharged Soldiers' Settlement Act and an indeterminate sum for operations I under the Land for Settlements Act is one that might give cause for anxiety were this amount destined to be of the unproductive character of so much of the war expenditure. Fortunately the Government has now reached a stage at which it can apply the public funds to construction instead of destruction. No money can be better spent than that devoted to re-establishing soldiers in civil life and fitting them to play their part in the great primary industries. Such expenditure operates powerfully towards repairing the economic system. In undertaking it the State is but discharging an elementary duty towards the soldier, and is creating wealth which will be shared by the whole community. In the absence of worthier motives, self-interest would prompt the State to find all reasonable sums for the settlement of returned men. The money is not a gift. By far the greater part is recoverable, and the security is, or should be, ample. The country may look forward to the repayment of these advances within a comparatively short period and to enjoy for its lending the blessings of increased production and an expansion of the general prosperity. j But many a sound principle has j suffered by faulty application, and it J is the duty of Parliament to inquire J closely how the millions required for j land settlement are to be spent. It is to be regretted that Sir James j Allen did not give a more detailed j statement of the progress of settlement and a more illuminating survey of the future programme. It apI pears that the authority of j £1,500,000 provided by Parliament ; last session was exhausted some months ago, 'and* that commitments largely in excess of it have already been entered into. Owing to the j rapid demobilisation of the army the disbursements for soldier settlement —including presumably the purchase of land and advances for houses, improvements and stockhave during i the past few weeks been at the rate j of a million a month and they are ! expected to average for some time to come £800,000 a month. The Government, envisaging all possible calls upon it in this connection, , has asked authority to borrow £12,500,000, with a additional £2,000,000 a year for two years and £1,000,000 a year thereafter. These are very large sums, and it would be interesting to know how many soldiers the Government hopes to place on the land. It is unfortunate that no clear distinction is made in Sir James Allen's statement between the amount required for advances to soldiers and that required for the purchase of estates. It might be inferred that the additional £2,000,000 a year mentioned by the Minister for Finance will suffice for land purchase, but this is improbable. In addition to estates bought under the Land for Settlements Act the Government is incurring heavy liabilities under the Discharged Soldiers' Settlement Act in financing men who make their own selection of a farm and then inquire for assistance. In a statement made about a month ago Mr. Guthrie gave the expenditure under the Discharged Soldiers' Settlement Act at £3,057,431 and under the Land Settlements Act for the purchase of private estates at £2,846,679. But closer examination of the details of the first total showed that it included £1,156,467 for the purchase of farms for particular soldiers. It followed that out of a total expenditure of less than £6,000,000 over £4,000. 100 had gone for land. It will not prove surprising if twothirds of the huge authority asked by Sir .Tarries Allen is also required for I lie acquisition of private properly in one form or another. The country is entitled to know whether the Government proposes any alternative to this exceedingly costly policy of private purchase. Parsimony does not dictate the inquiry. It must, be remembered that the money has to be refunded, and if inflated prices are paid for land the greatest sufferers will be the soldiers the community i B anxious to help. In his last annual report to the, Minister, the chairman of the Board of Land Purchase Commissioners remarked: "Generally, the prices now ruling are such that it is found next to impossible to secure

land at a price, even without the addition of the necessary charges, i that will leave any great margin for 1 working, consequently only the most experienced and energetic soldiers can look for the success they deserve." These are weighty words from the Government's own-adviser. Since then, the inflation of values has become more pronounced, owing principally to the State forcing prices up against itself. If the present form of settlement promises success to only the " most experienced and energetic soldiers," is it not radically wrong? Is the margin not altogether too fine Is the system not unfair for the soldier and unsafe for the State? And if the answer is in the affirmative, can the Government not vary and liberalise its policy by opening up the large areas of Crown lands now going to waste? The existence of this land is not challenged, its fertility is not denied, but no Minister has endeavoured to explain why it is not offered in considerable areas to soldiers. The Crown lands are the mirage of settlement and the mystery of present-day politics. Will the Prime Minister read the riddle and explain why they, are locked against the soldier?