LAND FOR SOLDIERS

Waikato Times, Volume 127, Issue 21243, 14 October 1940, Page 6

LAND FOR SOLDIERS

There will be general relief that the Small Farms Amendment Bill was not rushed through the House on Friday, but was held over for more mature consideration. Since the measure provides the means of settling discharged soldiers on the land it is of first-class importance and it is well that the House and the country should have six weeks to ponder it. Experience of soldier settlement after the last war was a sufficient warning that ill-considered legislation on such a matter can lead to disaster. The lessons of that experience should have been thoroughly learned, however, and it is unlikely that the country will fall into such an error again. Everyone in the House on this occasion appears to be determined that returned soldiers shall not be placed on farms unless reasonable economic security is assured. Very small allotments will not do, except in isolated cases, and soldiers will not be induced to accept responsibility for large tracts of hopelessly poor country; no one will ask them to do it. If they are to make a living from the land they must have prospects at least equal to those of the ordinary civilian, who purchases land after assuring himself that at a given price it will yield him approximately a given return. In other words, the productive value reasonably in sight must be the guiding principle. The gamble attached to settlement of unknown land or land which has been an economic failure, is not for the soldier, unless he wishes to take the risk with his eyes open and on his own account. The problem now is extraordinarily difficult. In the first place, practically all the land in New Zealand that could be considered for settlement by soldiers is already settled. In some cases private holders will be prepared to offer land for purchase by the Government, in which case the assessment of a fair and reasonable price will not be an easy matter. The Minister has quoted the case of an estate of 9000 :•( res offered for £40,000, while the Government’s valuation is £27,000 and the Lands Department’s valuation £13,000. How is a fair price to be arrived at, excepting on a basis of productive capacity? If that price is assessed, will the holder be willing to sell? His mortgage or other commitments might make it impossible for him to sell at the price fixed without serious loss. In that case the exercise of the compulsory powers would present obvious difficulty. Another aspect of great importance is that the probable future level of prices for produce must be considered.