CORRESPONDENCE

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 4, Issue 162, 1 October 1941, Page 2

CORRESPONDENCE

SOLDIERS REPATRIATION

Sir—The problem of the repatriation of our soldiers returning from tlie present conflict is a question that naturally exercises the minds of our people generally who recognise the obligation of the State to in some measure ensure that our boys are rehabilitated back into society and to at least, as favourable positions as they were belore they left our shores. Actually it is impossible for our country to fully and adequately reward the men for the: heroic services they have given our Empire in its hours of peril, but we can at least plan to do the utmost nur resources permit, and to sec to it that at least abstract justice is done particularly in regard to equitable treatment as between man and man. The repatriation of our men from the Great War left much to be desired from many points of view and in these circumstances the problem to-dav deserves, in fact demands, that the mistakes made in the past shall not be perpetuated in the future. The problem will unquestionably receive the earnest and sympathetic consideration of the Gov; eminent. The last war taught those engaged on the problem many valuable and in many cases tragic lessons. Personally I hold the view that the problem merits the setting up of a National Board of Repatriation thoroughly representative of all interests and aspects of the problem and containing on its personnel men Who had wide and valuable experience after the last war. The Government of that day and many of its departmental officers have passed away, but many men both official and civilian remains whose experience should be made available in tlia light of experience gained and which would be of inestimable value to-day in the light of the experience

gained

The repatriation problem after the last war developed as the war proceeded and afterwards over the years. The absence of considered and comprehensive planning was quickly evident aL the outset to those who held responsible administrative positions. Many of these errors and pitl'alis can be avoided by prompt action along the lines I now Indicate. The purchase of land foxcloser settlement was the major problem and was to say the least—* with some exceptions—a story of waste and .ineptitude and resulted in calamitous losses to the State and to the settlers and particularly to thousands of well intentioned civilians whose patriotism J:>y the very nature of the policy—was misdirected. In other words both the country and the State and individuals now dissipated by ill-considered schemes of repatriation particular]} 7 in relation to the purchase of land tit inflated and speculative prices that were beyond the capacity of the settler to even pay the 4 per cent interest demanded of him. To illustrate my point, I only have to mention the fact that the cost value of 305 estates involving a capital sum of £20,644,000 had to be written down by a sum of £8,067,296' resulting in also to the State of £12,567,704. This loss has no bearing on the amounts lost by the settlers themselves or by stock firms, private individuals and other mortgagees, which would probably involve a total loss of round £20,000,000. I am not suggesting for one moment that there was any question of maladministration by past governments or by any individual, but I do suggest that the whole problem should in the future be lifted clear of political party and placed in the hands of a National Board of Repatriation. I feel that the country would have greater confidence in repatriation generally if such a policy were adopted and the Board made directly re-;-pons,ible to Parliament. The acquisition of land was under the supervision of Land Purchase Officers directly responsible to the Minister and Cabinet. I hold the view that the purchase of future land should be carried out by valuers under the direct control of the Land Boards of the Dominion. These Boards comprise men with wide farming experience and are fully qualified to act in this capacity. Land Boards are charged with the full responsibility of the administration of the settlements but have no place in the "sun" in regard to the actual purchase of the land itself. I write with some knowledge and as a farmer with a life experience and a member of one of the most important Land Boards over the years of repatriation, and I have no hesitation in saying that.had the Land Boards been empowered to control the purchases made many of the serious mistakes made would have been avoided. The same can be said of the

purchase and" erection of houses. In the last war the maximum loan grant made a soldier was £2500' but many sections acquired under the DSS Act and other land settlement legislation permitted sums up to £(5000, for settlers and in many cases in excess of this sum. The writings off on these properties involving £8,067,290 is now a matter of history. It is important in the future to see that equitable treatment is given to all the men desirous, of repatriation for the- reason that many men of the last war did not receive any financial repatriation. In order to obviate any danger of inequitable treatment a definite and specific capital sum should be allocated to each man —irrespective of his rank —desirous of repatriation either to acquire land, a home or a business or to learn a trade or profession and in the event of the finance not being taken up by the soldier it should be invested in State Bonds and he should receive the interest . Closer land settlement and development is an intricate and difficult problem that requires handling by men with practical experience in all classes of farming working in cooperation with experienced fields ] and office staffs. Successful settlement can only be achieved by purchasing and developing land so that the economic load is not over capitalised and is kept Avitliin the capacity of the settler to meet his annual obligations. Ultimate success then depends on drafting to the sections men with experience. Of course many of our returned men will be young farmers with experience and these cases will present little difficulty but many will be ! inexperienced and they should serve an apprenticeship with a practical farmer before taking up land. The problem of repatriation is inextricably linked up with finance and I cannot imagine a more worthy or safe use of Reserve Bank Credit than "well planned repatriation. The whole scheme galvanises production both immediate and potential into action and counter any inflationary results. Although the actual rate of interest paid by returned soldiers: was 4 per cent tliej 7 paid burdensome interest in respect "to chattle and stock mortgages. An examination of some of the figures relative to land settlement from 1915 to 1936 indicate that £23,637,000 was expended and that the 22,812 settlers concerned repaid in principal and interest £13,///,699 of which probably £1,500,000 represented interest. I have always held the view that the "drag" of principal and interest repayment w r as an unreasonably heavy burden m view of the great services rendered by our men and constituted a wonderful effort and surely merits; earned consideration in any future schemes of repatriation. While the respective properties have in many cases been also> heavily written down many of the settlers still carry heavy mortgage liability. The rehabilitation back to health and to civilian life is the least that can be clone by a grateful country for our boys wlip have done and are doing everything that "death and danger dare ; " and who went forth to preserve to us the beautiful country in which we are privileged to live and to protect the great Empire to which we are all proud to belong.

Yours etc., C. H. BURNETT Tauranga 24/9/41.