DISPOSAL OF LAND

Otago Daily Times, Issue 27040, 26 March 1949, Page 8

DISPOSAL OF LAND

CAPE SAUNDERS AREA MINISTER’S STATEMENT CRITICISED SECRECY CHARGE REAFFIRMED

“ The Minister of Rehabilitation, Mr Skinner, has failed in his endeavour to refute my statement that his own department’s policy of priority for exservicemen was ignored in the disposal of the block of land near Cape Saunders,” said Mr D. J. W. Sheppard to the Daily Times yesterday. His original statement drew a reply from the Minister yesterday. The speaker maintained that the disposal of the land was secret.

Mr G. W. Sinclair, a resident of the district, told the Daily Times that he had made application for this block of land three years ago. His application was then turned down. He said that the first he knew of the disposal of the land was when he read about it in the Daily Times.

Mr Sinclair is a discharged home serviceman, and as such is eligible for rehabilitation assistance. When he made application for the land in the Papanui (Cape Saunders) block, he said, he was told that his priority was low, and he would have to wait until all the men overseas returned and their applications had been dealt with

A married man with three young children, Mr Sinclair is at present endeavouring to make a living on 10 acres he rents on the Peninsula, together with what he can make from rabbits. He was certain that he could make a living from the block at Papanui. He said that there was a good house on the block, and claimed that whoever got the house would not need it, as the farmers concerned had their own homes. No Assistance

" Surely my application was entitled to serious consideration," he added ‘ I have received no assistance from the Rehabilitation Department.. Following the failure of my application for this 198 acres. I approached the Rehabilitation Department, and was told that if I could find a suitable farm. I would be granted assistance to purchase it I found the property, and it was a cheap one, but when I applied for assistance I was turned down. ’ As a discharged serviceman with a family, Mr Sinclair maintained that he was entitled to prior consideration over a man who already held 151 acres and who did not Qualify for rehabilitation assistance.

In support of Mr Sinclair’s contention that the block at Papanui could have been developed into a sound economic unit, Mr Sheppard said it was open country that would respond to proper treatment. If it were an uneconomic unit, the department concerned had taken a long time to find this out. He asked why it had not done so three or four years ago, when the whole area, with the exception of the farms held by two men. was reallocated. Walked Off Mr Sheppard said he was informed by the recently-retired Commissioner of Crown Lands, Mr Shaw, that this block of 198 acres was the only one in the settlement which had shown a surplus when originally occupied. Ine settlement was opened up. by the previous Government to assist unemployed. The land was subdivided homes were built, and men though capable of farming it were placed on the holdings. They were paid a wage, and if they made a go of it, they were promised the freehold. After the policy of the present Government became known —that no freehold would be granted—Mr Sheppard said, a number of the settlers walked on dissatisfied. The 198 acres apparently was good enough to provide a man with wages and still show a surplus on the undertaking. “Now, to uphold the action of the Land Settlement Board.” Mr Sheppard continued, “ the Minister makes excuses by saying that the man to whom the land was disposed is also holding an uneconomic unit. He has managed to make a living in the past or years without the extra block. “L contend that the disposal of the land was a secret one,” he concluded “It also represented a breach of the policy of priority. I made no charge of ‘ sinister ’ actions, but the charges embodied in my original complaint remain unchallenged.”.