Servicemen Settlement

Wanganui Chronicle, 30 April 1949, Page 2

Servicemen Settlement

Sir, —It is in refreshing contrast from "Also Graded," to find "Realist” in your issue of 22nd. taking me to task in fair and moderate language. In his case he is honestly trying to get to th e root of the present-hold-up in land settlement. “Realist''. has remarked though, that he had thought me to be a Federated Farmers’ man “first and last' and that I was not particularly interested in the settlement of returned servicemen. We surely should all attempt to be good New Zealanders first. If I have seemed to have concentrated on Federated Farmers .(’though almost all nty efforts were conlined to the days of the old Farmers’ Union), it has been with the idea that as 1 farming is the basic industry of this country, to find a solution to the problems of farming would go a long way towards providing solutions to most of our national problems. "Realist" questioned my poking my nose into the affairs ot servicemen. “Also Graded" has bluntly and insultingly denied me the rignt to "poke my nose in." Since an established farmer has the over-all responsibility as an elector to honour the promises which were made to the servicemen going overseas and since the honouring ot those promises impinges on his own industry, such tanners have a right to so interfere. “Realist" has challenged me to produce the names of 20 owners who are willing to sell at '49 values. 1 can suggest that any such “owners’ could inform the Provincial Secretary of Federated Farmers of their willingness to sell at '49 values, with the proviso that it would be in the strictest conlidence, for, a disclosed willingness to sell can attract the attentions of the authorities who may invoke the compulsory clause of the Act "to take at 1942 values."

The number of farms 1 had quoted was not the “23,000” but 15,000. 1 had stated on that occasion tins was the figure arrived at by a survey by Federated Farmers' “of single unit farms,” whose owners desired to sell, ranging from an urgent desire to sell right down to those who would sell for patriotic reasons. This survey found that these owners could not contemplate selling at 1942 values . . . for it would entail financial suicide to do so. In other words the capital they would take out of the farm, would fail to provide them with anything approaching the Age Benefit on which to retire.

I have shown that the nett worth of farming was £144 millions. On a recent survey by Federated Farmers there are 61,000 sheep and dairy farmers in New Zealand. It we multiply 60,000 farmers by the £14,500 it requires to be a hop ahead o£ the Age Beneiit, the answer is 870 millions. Here then is the proof of the inability of these single unit farmers to sell at 1942 values. To claim that all these 15,000 single unit farms would not be suitably lor returned men, is at once an admission that there “is” something wrong with New Zealand farming. It can be assumed though, that at least 5000 oi them would be suitable and that with a “fair and equitable" price to the present owners (and not “full’ 1948 values) it would not be extravagant to claim that all the waiting returned men “could" be settled within 12 months. The intending serviceman farmer would be advised to appreciate the fact that it is to the injustices which have been borne by our farming since almost the turn of the century . . . and not to the avaricious owners oi land, that the present slow rate of settlement can be blamed. —I am, etc., R. O. MONTGOMERIE. 25/4/49.