"NO CORRUPTION."

Auckland Star, Volume LIX, Issue 222, 19 September 1928, Page 3

"NO CORRUPTION."

BUT MANY MISTAKES. SOLDIER LAND VTOKKASES. MR. McLEOD ADMITS ERRORS. (By Telegraph.—Parliament arj K. porter .1 WELLINGTON., Tuesday. The old story of the Governmcm's mistakes in the purchase of lands for soldier settlement was reiterated in the House this afternoon, when Mr. J. A. Lie (Auckland East) said lie thought a return should be tabled showing tlie estates purchased by the Governnu-u-. , the name of the person or persons from whom each estate was bought, and 1 lieamount by which each estate had bciti written down. The fact that this information had never been given, said 31 r. Lee, left it open to the people to pui their own construction on the Government's action. During the debate that followed, it wag asserted time and again that tlie Government had bought land at exorMtant prices from wealthy owners. JVlr. D. Jones (Ellesmere) said that this was tantamount to a charge of corruption against officers of the Lands Department and the Valuation Department and tinGovernment. Political Heresy Hunt. Mr. J. A. Lee and the Leader of the Opposition both protested that they had made no charge of corruption. Mr. Joins replied by arguing that if not corrupt ion then they must have charged something like misconduct. Mr. Speaker (Sir Charles Statham) insisted that the member for Ellesnieve must accept the assurance of the Opporition members that they had made no such charge. It was not open for any single member to charge corruption in the course of a debate. However, a member's hands were not tied—if anyone wanted to bring a charge of corruption he could do so in the proper way, by giving notice of motion. * The Minister of Lands (Hon. A. D. Mc ; Leod) said this talk about the high price of soldier settlement lande was simply a political heresy hunt and nothing else. Mr. J. McCombs (Lyttelton): Is there anything to hide? Mr. McLeod said that as far as he was concerned there was not; he had gone through all the files of the Ministers before him and of the officers of the department. He could eay that no one had anything to be ashamed of. It was true, of course, that mistakes had been made. Mr. D. Sullivan (Avon) in a series of interjections reminded the Minister that, as a private member he (Mr. McLeod 1 had said too much was paid for the land. The Minister admitted that that was so. Mr. Sullivan: If you were fight then. how can we be wrong now * A little later, Mr. H. Atmore (Nelson) interjected, "whereupon the Minister asked what good advice that member had

ever given to soldier settlers. Mr. Atmore: I criticised your foolish purchases. A Disappearing Grievance. The Minister -went on to say that the practice of not paying the Crown what was due was becoming too general. If it was not curbed in some way would become dangerous for the Crown to purchase. There had been a good deal too much talk, inviting the settlers not to pay, on the ground that the Government was-demanding too much. Mr. E. J. Howard (Chriatchurcli South): You said it yourself as a private member. The Minister: I said it before a pennyworth of reduction had. been made. T know the psychology of the soldier as well as anyone, and the great bulk of them are perfectly satisfied with the value they are getting. However, some of them said that if the lead-swinger across the fence was getting a reduction. then they would get a reduction also. Mr. Holland: Does that mean that all who are asking for revaluations are leads wingers ? The Minister went on to sav that ber of them were, and lie was prepared to say that from a public platform. There was too much jealousy among settlers. who were continually contrasting the price of their land with that of their neighbour. Mr. McLeod concluded by quoting figures to show that the revenue was increasing year by year, revenue from soldier settlement lands having gone up from £1,653,000 in 1926-7 to £l ? 792,0O0 last year. So rapidly was the position improving that, with a few more good years, the matter of soldier settlement lands would have disappeared from the political arena altogether, and the Opposition would then have one less subject out of which to make political capitaL