MONDAY, JODY 3, 1922. COSTLY SETTLEMENT

New Zealand Times, Volume XLIX, Issue 11252, 3 July 1922, Page 6

MONDAY, JODY 3, 1922. COSTLY SETTLEMENT

The outcome of the motion for a return in regard to soldier-settlement, notice of which -was given in Parliament last week by Mr T. K. Sidey, M.P., will be awaited with no little interest. The information desired by the hon. member for Dunedin South is stated categorically under some seven or eight different heads ; but we note that not one of them refers to the Government unimproved value of the estates purchased by the State for discharged soldiers. Information as to the unimproved value of these estates, at the time of their acquisition by the Government, is regarded by very many .people as absolutely essential to a sound judgment as to the fairness or otherwise of the purchase prices paid. But such information has been bo consistently and persistently refused by Ministers, that Mr Sidey doubtless felt that to ask for it yet again would be merely courting another refusal. That, however, is surely, a mistaken attitude to adopt. Parliament and the country are entitled to know what were the unimproved values of these estates when they were acquired by the Government for soldier-settlement. This information should, therefore, be pressed for vigorously and continuously. That is the boundon duty of members of Parliament. If the Government declines to make known the information, that is its affair. The oft-repeated refusal to give the figures desired inevitably gives rise to the suspicion that there must be a very serious discrepancy indeed between the Government unimproved values of the estates in question and the prices paid by tbo Government for theso estates; and such a discrepancy could only point to one of two things—<l) That the Government has paid far too much for the estates; or (2) that for years past the owners of those estates had been paying far too little in land tax.

Three of the things that Mr Sidey wants to know are—(l) The total area of land purchased for returned soldiers and the price paid for the same; (2) the amount of accumulated surpluses exponded in the purchase of land for returned soldiers; and (3) the area now occupied by returned soldiers. Another point, on which information might well be sought, is the area of land taken up by soldier-settlers and afterwards abandoned by them, whether on account of the heavy millstones of mortgage-indobtedness fasten, ed around their necks, or for other reasons. The second 1 point raised by

Mr Sidey is of particular interest at the present time of depression and financial stringency; because the accumulated surpluses, invested in giltedged securities in .London, had been specially thus stored up by Sir Joseph Ward, as Treasurer in the National Government, to meet just such a period of stress and strain as that which the Dominion is now passing through. At the time of the break-up of the National Government these accumulated surpluses amounted to some 15$ millions sterling. Subsequently, as Leader of the Opposition, Sir Joseph Ward, not only once, but several times, strongly urged the Reform Government not to dissipate or tie up these surpluses, but keep, them as a stand-by for the hard times that were only too likely to be ahead. Earnestly he warned the Government of the consequences that must follow if his advice was not heeded. The Government, however, preferred to take its own headstrong course. Where that course has landed the country is patent to all who intelligently follow' the trend of public affairs. The brunt of the aftermath of that course is being borne by the farmers, whelmed in tho vortex of the slump, by the soldiersettlers, saddled with holdings at inflated values, by the public servants, subjected to a policy of “cut’’ and come again, and by the unemployed. We do not suggest, of course, that the whole of the 15$ millions of surpluses was dissipated on the purchase of land for soldier-settlement. “Invested,” Sir James Allen preferred to call it. But, whether spent on buying estates or otherwise, the accumulated surpluses have gone. The liquid investment, available promptly in case of need, has been replaced by investments of a totally different character. Tho 15$ millions is so tied up, in fact, that it might just as well, for the purpose of meeting the difficulties caused by the present slump, be at the bottom of the sea. It was late in 1915 that the Government took power, by the Discharged Soldiers’ Settlement Act, to purchase land for soldier-settlers; and up to March 31st, 1921, there had been spent in this way some 14 million pounds. Up to the same date advances for the purchase of stock and implements, for building or buying houses, and so forth, had been authorised to the amount of nearly four millions more. The total expended on land and advanced for other purposes up to March 31st, 1921, was £17,941,980. In his Financial Statement of November last, the Prime Minister showed that up till the end of tho financial year there had been proclaim, ed as open for settlement under the Discharged Soldiers’ Settlement Act 1,321,091 acres; and, as the Napier “Daily Telegraph” recently put it: “The natural inference drawn by most people not of a sceptical frame of mind was that something like this area had been added to the occupied land of New Zealand.” The facts, _ however, as the “Telegraph” went on to show, are far otherwise. The landbuying policy practically commenced in 1918. Between that year and March 31st, 1921, the area added to the occupied lands of the Dominion was only 334,678 acres; and this comprised not only the soldier-settlements, but a considerable area settled by civilians in the ordinary way. How very little advance, in spite of the settlement of over 8000 discharged soldiers on the land, the Dominion has made in the period under review in the vital matter of extending settlement and production to unoccupied areas, is shown by the following official figures as to the holdings and areas occupied in the four years 1917-18 to 1920-21, inclusive :

No. of holdings. Area occupied

In view of the civilian settlement going on concurrently with the soldiersettlement, these figures inevitably suggest that very much of the BoldiersetUement must have consisted, not in opening up to production now land, but in buying up at great expense land already in occupation and dividing it up amongst discharged soldiers. Even if we assume that during the four years in question no civilian settlement whatever took place, what does the position amount to? The plain English of it is that the Government has spent over 14 millions sterling to secure an addition of 334,678 acres to the area formerly occupied! This sort of thing is hardly what one understood by the Reform slogan: “Settlement, more settlement, still more settle, ment.”

Acres. 1917-18 .... ■ 43,212,079 1918-19 .... 80,463 43,342,706 1919-20 .... 43,473,079 1920-21 .... 84,076 43,546,757