MR BURNETT AND THE SOLDIER SETTLERS.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXIII, Issue 18763, 30 December 1930, Page 12

MR BURNETT AND THE SOLDIER SETTLERS.

To the Editor of the “ Tlmaru Herald.” Sir.—For some years past I have considered there were no further uses soldier settlers could be put to. Thinking this, it was the rudest of awakenings to discover we are still of use to politicians, capital, large landowners and investors. To find ourselves used for the maintaining of high interest rates, so as to win more wealth for capital, to be indirectly used for the abolition of the Arbitration Court and the reducing of the standard of living, creates a feeling that can only be equalled by a double rum issue before going “over the top.” “Soldier settlers who have not paid interest for many years past,” says Mr Burnett, M.P. The “Man from the Hills” knows perfectly well, or should know, that if the rental value of soldier settlers’ properties were reduced to their earning value, and such reductions made retrospective, the majority of soldier settlers would have a handsome credit balance. Surely Mr Burnett does not expect us to pay interest on the Reform Government’s gift to capital—a gift amounting to millions of pounds, a gift of the peoples’ money made under the camouflage of “repatriation.” Mr Burnett’s statement, “you cannot deliberately say that high interest charges are responsible for the position of many of our primary producers,” makes one wonder how he ever became a member of Parliament. One per cent, interest reduction on our National Debt would mean an annual saving of £2,640,000, and on our local bodies’ debt, £70,000. What an easing of the taxpayers’ burden. Are any more illustrations needed to show how high interest charges are strangling the primary producer? High interest charges and high land values are slowly bleeding both farm and farmer to death. Mr Burnett’s comment that “the Government has made remissions to returned soldiers in a ruthless endeavour to save the situation,” is really humorous to one who knows. The “ruthless endeavours” were not in the direction indicated by the “plain bread and mutton man.” What soldier settler, in reply to his requests for revaluation, has not received a sheaf of correspondence full of such as the following? “It is presumed you inspected the property, and you are expected to have a little self-reliance”; the Revaluation Board refuses to consider the question of rental value”; “the Land Board agrees with the decision of the Revaluation Board”; “the Land Board is not in a position to interfere in any way; any proposals for carrying on must come from you.” These illustrations pay striking tribute to the Government’s “ruthless endeavours” to evade the granting of concessions to soldier settlers. These and many other illustrations show the hostility with which any requests of soldier settlers have been met. What chance had the soldier settlers of receiving justice from a Government whose officers of the Land and Valuation Departments were hampered by the dead weight of their past inefficiency—a weight heavy enough to sink a ship? In spite of the Government’s “ruthless endeavours,” we still find soldier settlers holding meetings, and passing resolutions urging the Government to reduce the value of land and improvements, and requesting the ActingPrime Minister to treat the matters as of extreme urgency. That land values are too high is realised by more than the member for Timaru. After a tour of New Zealand, Sir Richard Winfrey, a former Parliamentary Secretary to the British Ministry of Agriculture, expressed himself as follows:—“There are fewer people on the land in this Dominion than five years ago—a striking fact. However, with the far fuller amenities of country life, surely the tide will turn in favour of agricultural and pastoral pursuits. But I do not think that day can come until the price of land falls considerably, and the Government grasp the problem like men of mettle.” These views are supported by Mr E. J. Fawcett, M..A, Government Farm Economist, in the surveys which he has recently been carrying out. In one of these surveys he states: —“No matter what the natural conditions may be, the fact remains that unless a farmer, after meeting maintenance and living expenses, can meet his interest obligations, there is something radically wrong. Where there is a deficiency, management is lacking—or faulty judgment has been experienced in purchasing the farm at too high a price in the first place.” That management has not been lacking, increased production proves. Need the primary producer look further for his most important remedy? If the member for Temuka lives long enough, and thinks hard enough, he may some day realise that every pound paid in rent or interest, rates and taxes, is so much less capital available for the development of the farm and the earning of further revenue. He may yet discover the vast difference between the winning of wealth and the production of wealth.—l am, etc., BANKFIELD SETTLER.