SOLDIER SETTLEMENT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LVII, Issue 17597, 9 October 1920, Page 8

SOLDIER SETTLEMENT.

J THE* NEW LOANS BILL, ; SECOND READING DEBATE. | SPEECH BY PRIME MINISTER. [BT >EtEGBAPH.— isSOCUTIOK.X "" : „ WBLUNGTON, Friday. In , the ' House of Representatives this afternoon ' the Primes-Minister moved i the second reading of the Discharged Soldiers' Settlement , Loans Bill. ' He said ? the Bill could scarcely .be called contentious as be thought most members agreed to .the principle of helping r soldiers, :He wished to make it. clear; that the money would not be used for any other purpose until the soldiers were ■ supplied with the land they required. Thd amount of the loan was £6,000,000 and he thought he saw a way of adding to that another £1,000.000. The rate of interest would be 54 per cent, and though the term of the loan had not. yet been fixed he thought it would not be less than ten years nor more than fifteen. The sum of £2,600,000 of this loan would be set apart for the payment of death duties / and judging by. previous experience he thought this sum would be taken up for. this purpose. There were compulsory clauses in the Bill, but these differed from the provisions of previous Bills and would only amount to a sum equal to one year's land and income tax. This was the last compulsory loan because nothing bub the war justified compulsion,* and as no further war was in sight he thought they could afford not to insist on compulsion in the future. Clause 7 instituted a new principle enabling the Government to buy back its own debentures if they were being sold on the market at below par.- This was regularly dope in Britain, and was, he thought, good business. Mr. Massey then proceeded,, to read tabulated" details of the Government's operations in conneo'tion with the repatriation and' the settlement of soldiers. Summing up these operations he said they showed a great record. No other country in the world had done 60 much for its soldiers and he was particularly pleased to say that a great majority of the soldiers were doing well. There bad been failures but these were few and far between.

The Opposition Viewpoint. . Mr. T. M. Wilford, Leader of the Opposition, said no one could doubt the solvency of the country, because while we had increased our indebtedness to £201,000,000 our private wealth alone would balance that. He was sure no one would object to assistance being given to soldiers, but the question was whether we were doing the best we could with the money we had. He did not think it necessary to put the compulsory clauses into effect, because he believed all the money required would be readily subscribed, so good was the interest and so good was "the investment. -There ""was even a possibility of the Government receiving more money than was required, and if so he recommended -the Government to adopt the suggestion made by Dr. Thacker that the surplus should be handed over to local bodies, whose loan proposals might be imperilled by more attractive Government proposals. The point he wished,to make, however, was the failure of the Government from want of sympathy to' take land compulsorily for soldiers. The Prime Minister was fond of telling the House that, he had made 20,000 subdivisions in recent years, but when he was asked how many new settlers had been placed on these subdivisions he could not reply. Mr. Massey: It is quite impossible to say. Excessive Prices Asked.

ffentinuing, Mr. Wilford said the whole of the land purchased for soldiers had been bought by private treaty, and he quoted, figures supplied by the Commissioner of Crown Lands in Canterbury giving excessive prices being asked by the owners of land offered to the Government.

Mr. Massey: These prices were not paid; Mr. Wilford declared that there were two Qropertiea *° the Waiiarapa which belonged to two men without chick or child, and which soldiery were clamouring to have acquired. These estates ought to be taken, and should be taken through the Public Works Act. The Prime Minister had said that the land should be taken compulsorily. He said he would do so, but be had not done it. No indi vidua! sbcMd be permitted to hold land to block soldiers' settlements. It had been the proclaimed policy of the Government to settle soldiers in the districts from which they came, but -had this been done? It was a crying shame. Land fit for soldiers' settlement was being held just because the owners did not offer it. It ought to be taken eompulsorily.

A Reply to Mr. Wilford.. The Hon, D.. H. Guthrie, Minister for Lands, said the Leader of the Opposition seemed to think the Government was subdividing land merely for sport. The fact was that they had found, homes for 15,000 soldiers. One of the Wairarapa properties referred to by Mr. Wilford had been offered to the Government at a price at which it was a gift, but bad to be rejected, because it could not bo profitably cut up. Continuing in the evening, Mr. Guthrie defended the Government from criticisms of the policy pursued in buying land for soldier settlements. When men first began to return, from the war it was felt that they were not in a condition to break in new land, and some small areas were bought to settle them on. That practice was now ending.

Comments by Members. Mr. G. Mitchell (Wellington South) congratulated the Government and the country on what had been done for the soldiers, but he urged that every effort was needed to get men settled in the country. The balance_of population drifted to the cities and towns too quickly. Mr. V. H. Potter (Roskill) contended that the Government should not be spending money on the compulsory acquisition of estates to settle returned soldiers upon while so much native and Crown land was lying idle and producing nothing. Mr. R. McCallum (Wairau) objected to clause 7, which, he said, proposed that the Government should become "stock jobbers." The proposed power to purchase depreciated stocks was fraught with danger, and in Committee he intended to move the deletion of the clause At, 12.20 a.m. jthe Prime ' Minister replied, and the second reading was carried on the voices. The BUI was put through committee without amendment, read a third time, and passed. '