LAND SETTLEMENT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20366, 21 September 1929, Page 13

LAND SETTLEMENT.

PROVISIONS OF NEW BILL.

CRITICISM BY THE LEAGUE.

"SHORT OF EXPECTATIONS."

Disappointment with the provisions of the Lands Laws Amendment Bill, 1929, and the opinion tbat it falls short of what was expected, were expressed at a meeting of the New Zealand Land Settlement and Development League yesterday. • A report upon the bill in its present form was submitted by the secretary, Mr. N. G. Gribble. He said that in the New Zealand Herald that day it was announced that the bill had gone forward from the Lands Committee with practically no amendments to its essontial clauses and he made his comments subject to correction upon the ' receipt of further information.

In clause 3 the principle of co-operation between the Government departments, which was desirable, was set out. The personnel of the suggested Lands Development Board, with the exception of the Minister, was exclusively official. Its duty was exclusively in connection with Crown or settlement lands, and although nominally set up " for the purpose of promoting settlement," it appeared that its duty would bo to consider the financial aspects of settlement as submitted to it, probably by the land boards. There was little chance of any business management, and the political viewpoint was inevitable.

Care and Guidance Necessary.

Clause 4 indicated that the advisory committee in each district would have the commissioner of Crown lands as a certainty, and two other persons. The other persons should be proved men with local knowledge. The committees had no advisory faculty in helping in the work of " bringing in " or subsequent care and guidance of the young settler. The purposes for which money may be expended were covered in clauses 6, 7 and 13, (a) to improve lands held by the Crown, prior to disposal; (b) to assist Crown tenants to improve holdings; (c) to render settlement lands (those acquired by the Crown) suitable for the utilisation, and to assist leases, •of those lands.

It was apparent that the Minister might buy livestock to depasture Crown lands while in the stage of development, but there was no indication anywhere that it was intended to provide " going concerns." Also, as far as could be gathered, thtere was no provision for group or camp settlement as suggested by the league, nor would men who had worked to bring in the holding have any preference in the ballot. In addition to that there was no fixing of the price at cost of development. It might be more or less. The land boards had absolute discretion in fixing the value. Advances and Bepayments.

In connection with the advances to Crown tenants, there was no possibility of a reduction in the cost of production. All sales wero apparently based on the purchaser finding 90 per cent, of the cost of the holding. In addition, he would, of course, have to supply the necessary stock, etc., to make the place reproductive.

Further, there was no definite provision as to the basis upon which repayment would be made, and there was no definite indication that provision would be made for retaining the moneys provided for that work for that purpose alone. It would be desirable that the money provided should be earmarked purely for development, and as soon as the holdings were taken up and a reasonable margin available, the finance should he found through the Stato Advances Office or some other office retaining land for settlement funds for their legitimate development purposes. Generally speaking, the provisions appeared to be lor development rather than for settlement. Part 4. of the bill made miscellaneous amendments in connection with the Land for Settlement Act, 1925. Those seemed to be- in the direction of to force people to dispose of land and of altering the basis of remuneration for lands taken.

Cadst Group Settlement.

Recalling that the Minister of Lands had advised the league that the Government could not consider the league's proposals for cadet group settlemeut, saying that' it was intended to use the provision made exclusively for the settlement of experienced farmers, with and without capital, Mr. Gribble said that that was the impression gathered from the bill. It appeared to be intended to meet a clamour rather than to encourage settlement.

There was nothing in it about training either men or boys, and no provision for the guidance and after-care of the people settled under the proposals. Apparently the land boards, which had certainly done very little in the past other than to collect rents and make minor adjustments of that sort, were to be charged with the full responsibility of selecting and placing the " experienced " farmers. There was no indicatioji whatever of any effort to take advantage of the resources of the Empire, particularly the cheap money offered by the British Government, which in the Western Australian scheme was costing that State 2 per cent, per annum for the first 10 years, nor Vas there any intimation of the intention to carry out schemes such as those in force in Canada, Australia and South Africa. New Zealand was undoubtedly at a grave disadvantage in that matter. Utilising Expert Advice.

The chairman, Mr. W. J. Holdsworth, expressed surprise that the Government was so blind to what had been done with success in other countries. Ho deplored the fact that, it was not intended to take advantage of the help that was offering from expert people, and so removo the matter from the political arena. Such advice was of paramount importance if any schemo was to be made a complete success. " It seems that officialdom has made a job for officialdom," remarked Mr. C. .T. Lovegrove. Ho expressed _ great disappointment with the provisions of the A resolution was passed thanking Mr. Gribble for his report, and instructing him to forward a copy to all the North Island members of Parliament.