GROUP SETTEMENT.

Auckland Star, Volume LIX, Issue 236, 5 October 1928, Page 3

GROUP SETTEMENT.

MINISTER'S VIEW CHANGING.

THE IMPERIAL SCHEME.

AN EXPENSIVE BUSINESS.

(By Telegraph.—Parliamentary Reporter.)

WELLINGTON, Thursday.

A changing view on the part of the Minister of Lands in regard to the group settlement of land was indicated when he moved the second reading of the Land Laws Amendment Bill in the House to-night. He spoke of the possibility of utilising the measure in association with the Imperial settlement scheme. Then were areas, mainly large dairying farms, said Mr. McLeod, which might be purchased by one or more persons under the terms qf the bill, and it could also be used by those who wished to get smaller areas of one to ten acres near cities. The bill would give an opportunity for New Zealand to work in with the Empire settlement scheme. The late Mr. Massey did not believe in this system, and the speaker held the same view. He quoted | experience of group settlement in West Australia to show that heavy losses were incurred by the Government, but he felt, after investigation, that New Zealand could go in for some sort of group settlement, and he proposed to discus the matter with Lord Lovat on hi« arrival. To effectively settle a family on good land meant at least £3000 expenditure if they were to get a decent living, but he saw the possibility, if the Home authorities were willing to co-operate, of taking immigrants who had arrived five or six years ago, accepting them as settlers, and placing them, with the same proportion of New Zealanders, on improved land. This was the point he would discuss with the Home authorities. "An Expensive Business." "Land settlement to-day is an expensive business," declared the Hon. O. J. Hawken, Minister of Agriculture. "It would cost a million to place 500 settlers." Mr. Hawken added that, as land settlement was such an expensive business, if there was to be a great deal of settlement, there would have to be more borrowing, or expenditure on public w rks should be cut down. Mr. J. A. Lee: How about a graduated tax on big estates? Mr. Hawken: lam glad the hon. gentleman mentioned that. The pi>esent graduated tax on large estates is very heavy indeed. Up till 1912 it was 3d in the £. It is now 7d—a tremendous difference. And added to that is the fact that land valuations were very much lower prior to 1912 than to-day, large estates are now paying a great deal more. Mr. Veitch (Wanganui): Poor chap! That is a shame. Mr. Hawken: No, I think the owner of a large estate should pay, and no one ; would be more pleased to eee them burst up. Mr. J. A. Lee: You will do anything ■ but burst them up. [ Mr. Hawken proceeded to argue that ■ when taxation became too high it was ' practically confiscation. He was begin- ■ ning to wonder whether 7d in the £ was i not getting close to the point where con- > fiscation started.