THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 1919. FREE LAND FOR SOLDIERS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LVI, Issue 17269, 19 September 1919, Page 6

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 1919. FREE LAND FOR SOLDIERS.

jAn important departure in land policy is involved in Mr. Guthrie's statement that the Government proposes to reintroduce the " homestead " system. Briefly put, "homestead" privileges included a free gran); of Crown land, subject to the conditions of five years' residence and the effecting of certain improvements. The system was in operation from 1885 to 1892, and under its provisions 464 settlers were placed on 76,097 acres in the Auckland district, 39 settlers on 1480 acres in Westland, and 19 settlers on 2689 acres in Otago. The greater success of the tenure in the Auckland Province was attributed to good bush land near navigable waters being opened to selectors. It is now proposed to apply it under totally dissimilar conditions. This is apparent from a reference made [by Mr. Massey to the subject during his recent; visit to Britain. In an interview appearing in London newspapers, the Prime Minister said he hoped, after legislative authority had been obtained, to set apart areas of second-class land capable of great improvement, which hitherto had lain idle because better land was available. It was proposed to have these blocks surveyed and subdivided into suitable areas for occupation, by returned soldiers who were willing to take them for settlement. After the men had lived on the land and effected such improvements as would be a guarantee of genuine settlement, they would be given a freehold title without payment. The homesteid system as applied in the '80's will require considerable modification to make it suitable for the settlement of discharged soldiers on the poorer Crown lands to-day. To begin with, the grants will have to be considerably larger. Under the Land Act of 1885 the maximum area that could be selected by an individual was 75 i acres, and the, joint holdings of a family could not exceed 300 acres of second-class land. The condij tions for the issue of a Crown grant were residence for five years, the erection of a house, and the cultivation of one-third of the area, if open land, and one-fifth if bush land. Soldiers settling on gum or pumice country will obviously require a more generous endowment, in point lof area, than provided for by the Act of 1885. Presumably the land which will be made available for homesteads will be' too poor for dairying, at least for several years, and the grants of sheep country will necessarily range from 500 to 1000 acres. It is also of vital importance that the provisions of the Discharged Soldiers' Settlement Act relating to financial assistance should apply to all who take up land under homestead regulations. The fatal weakness of this system as applied to poor land is that it makes no provision for loans for houses and improvements. The folly of putting men without capital on poor land cannot be permitted at this stage in New Zealand's development, and it is highly probable that the total sum that can be advanced by way of financial assistance will have to be greater for homesteads than in the case of other holdings. Some of the regulations governing improved farm settlements might with advantage be applied to the homestead system, notably those which enable the State to make contracts under which the settlers fell the bush and sow grass, the cost being paid by the Government, but remaining the ultimate liability of the settler.

Subject to these amendments, there appears to be a wide scope for the employment of the homestead system in the settlement of the poorer Crown lands. Mr. Ma.nder has suggested that the proposed legislation will be of particular value to the Far North, and this proposition may be agreed to without in any way depreciating the actual and potential value of Northern lands. It is true that the Royal Commission ot 1005 on land settlement and tenure, reported against the rewitroductiou of ti w> i, . , *«*♦,. " , " r ltl( ' homestead system or, the ground that it could only be successful if applied to good land, Wlth aCCCHR to mar kets, but the commission's whole objection to , * C homestead regulations appeared to rest on the fact that they made no provision for assisting settlers to improve their holdings It the Mate shows a wise liberality in helping soldiers over the period of preparation there is no reason whv the poorest Crown land should not be brought into profitable use. It will pay the State infinitely better

to give away land which has ■no present value and to lend the capital for*' .improving it than 'to i keep it closed against settlement. There is no land in New Zealand, other than the mountain tops and lake beds, which is not capable of growing some food for man or animal or some raw material, and the sooner it is brought into profit the better for the State. " The public will expect the Government to take a wide view of its responsibilities under the proposed legislation. Soldiers who accept inferior land as a gift will probably win a competence sooner than those who are paying inflated prices for improved estates, but they will have a period of waiting during which they are entitled to the most sympathetic assistance. It is not enough for the State to lend money. It must itself grapple with the cultural difficulties they will meet, and bring the knowledge of its experts to bear. The whole question of treatment of the poorer lands, particularly gum and pumice country, should be renewed de novo, and the approach should be both scientific and comprehensive. It is extremely wasteful to leave thousands of settlers to s6lve the same problems, each in his own way, at infinite labour and great cost. The State should make the task a communal one, and undertake it now, once and for all.