DRIVING MEN OFF THE LAND

NZ Truth, Issue 1306, 22 December 1930, Page 3

DRIVING MEN OFF THE LAND

Young Wanklyn's Case Is A Disgraceful Instance of Official Stupidity "WAS A MOST DESIRABLE SETTLER" The Land Committee of the House which heard the petition of A. M. Wanldyn, the soldier settler whose story was reviewed m "Truth" some time ago, has recommended it to the Government for favorable consideration, with a view to removing Wanklyn's disqualification from taking up Crown or settlement lands for a period of ten years. ( This, m itself, is tantamount to an admission that the Lands Department dealt harshly with Wanklyn when he was a tenant on the Kaiwaka Soldier Settlement block. But will the Government deal with this "favorably considered" petition like it has done with many others — leave it suspended m mid-air from session to session?

VARIOUS reasons have been advanced by the department concerned for the summary eviction of Wanklyn from his farm near Napier, and that, after he had spent something like £2300 m the purchase of the lease and m improvements on the land. Chief reasons brought forward by an idiotic department were that he didn't farm the land properly, and also that he was m arrear with payments to the Crown. The first contention has been completely disproved by Wanklyn, who tendered figures to show that he had increased th,e wool clip from the land from 30001bs. per annum. to GOOOlbs. So far as the second 'contention is concerned — the payments of arrears — even the Prime Minister himself said that was of no consequence, since it only involved a sum of £63 odd. ■ Ttie whole dispute, apparently, between the Lands Department and young Wanklyn lies m the fact that while the farm was not paying its way or keeping Wanklyn, the latter was keeping the farm. Wanklyn, senior, allowed his son £100 a year towards living expenses during his occupancy of the farm, and also made periodical advances towards buildings and improvements on the farm. These ran into £500. Wanklyn, pere, however, saw it was useless continually paying out on the farm, especially when the department failed to adequately assist his son m the matter of reduction m capital ■ value and rent, as had been done m the case of most of the other settlers on the Kaiwaka block. According 1 to Wanklyn, he was told that he was m a position to pay, and should do so; hence, -when he failed to do so, he was evicted and his section forfeited. Later, he was informed he was evicted because he failed to farm the land, but independent testimony from young Wanklyn's neighbors disproved this. Four signatories to a petition stated that, "during Wanklyn's occupancy of the land he was industrious and used his best endeavors to improve it, and that he installed many permanent improvements which were necessary for the obtaining of better results m the working of the land. Included m such improvements

was the installation of a sheep dip, which was of service to neighbors, who frequently made use of it ... that Wanklyn was a most desirable settler . . . and. that the improvements were a credit to his industry. So much for the Government's assertion that Wanklyn failed to farm the land. In a letter to Mr. Forbes, the then Minister of Lands, young Wfynklyn

said he was informed by the Commissioner for Crown Lands that he had plenty of money, therefore he should pay, and also that "Homies^ were not wanted m New Zealand. "I am aware that he now contradicts this," continues Wanklyn m his letter, and adds, "but is that the Department's idea of justice? To morally rob and actually impoverish those who assiduously work the land.' Having forfeited his lease. Wanklyn lost six years of ai-duous labor, besides all the capital he had invested m the land.

When the section was re-offered for selection, instead of being loaded with improvements, Wanklyn states it was only loaded with the arrears of rent. The improvements were grossly undervalued, being merely shown m the amount of the mortgage. When, the sections on the Kaiwaka block were re-valued, some | of the settlers benefited to the extent of £1400 and £1500, and others were as low as £475. Wanklyn's was reduced by £630, but It was m the rent that was written off that the great disparity arose. Possibly because Wanklyn, senior, j was m a position to assist his son j financially, the Department thought hej should have no relief, and that Mr. Wanklyn, senior's, resources should be drained to the limit. The Department reduced young Wanklyn's rent by one year (£179), while others had reduction of as much as £ 800. It was this - inequality and injustice which rankled and, finally led to young Wanklyn having to forfeit his section. Possibly one of the most difficult J sections of the whole settlement to work, the allowances to Wanklyn, instead of being the smallest, should j have been the greatest. At all events, the question of bad farming cannot hold water when it is realised that the young man took 60001bs. of wool off a rough, hilly farm of 587 acres. Farmers, the Department, and the country as a whole are losing too mucti money m this stupid class of bungling. Instead of helping the settlers and giving them every opportunity to make good, m numerous instances the Department has adopted an arbitrary and pig-headed attitude. New Zealand is not so much concerned at the present time with putting farmers on the land, but with keeping men already there going. Mr. Forbes has publicly stated that -the Government is out to help "triers," and that valuations of "abandoned" farms had been written down to the lowest point to make them attractive. It would be very interesting to know how much of the fault for these abandoned farms lies at the door of the Lands Department.