EX-SERVICEMEN AND LAND

Chronicle (Levin), 23 August 1946, Page 8

EX-SERVICEMEN AND LAND

, DIFFICULTIES OF SETTLEMENT ADDRESS TO LEVIN R.S.A. Some idea of the difficulties faced in the resettlement of returned servicemen on the land were given by Mr. P. G. H. Bennett, 'N.Z.R.S.A. representative on the Land Saies Committee, when he spoke at the quarterly meetiiig of the Levin R.S.A. on Wednesday night. He said that between 11,000 and 12,000 men had gone through the grading process, and of these only 2300 had been settled; 2000 on single unit purchases, and the remainder on Crown blocks. There was an impression prevalent, he continued, that there was still a great deal of suitable Crown land available -for resettlement of ex-servicemen, but this was not the case. A survey had been made of all Crown land, and it was found that there was only 120,000 acres suitable. When it was understood that 2,500,000 acres were required to meet rehabilitation commitments, some idea of the problem could be obtained. There were three main channels through which the exserviceman could be resettled — firstly, by the purchase of a fullyproductive single unit farm from the owner; secondly, where the Crown purchased the land, carried out major improvements and rented it; and, thirdly, where the Crown stepped in between two civilian buyers and sellers, and substituted an ex-serviceman buyer. This was done under section 51 of the Land Saies Act. He was quite satisfled that these methods on their own were not sufflcient to cover the leeway. It was the policy of the R.S.A. to speed the process, and make more land available, if possible, by acquiring land that was not being fully worked and putting ex-ser-vicemen on to it.' It would also have the advantage of increasing production, which was very important from the financial aspect, as £4,500,000 had been spent up to date on land rehabilitation. Describing the land rehabilitation set-up, Mr. Bennett said that the Land Saies Board had full power and was the controlling authority, and all Government departments concerned were merely agents for it. However, he was sure that the scheme was not operating entirely on those lines. The R.S.A. had one nominee on the board, and also had direct representation on the Land Settlement Board. There was an R.S.A. representative on every rehabilitation committee in New Zealand. Ninety per cent. of the chairmen of grading committees were R.S.A. members. He was the association's representative on the Land Saies Board, with half a dozen Government members, and he had never felt that he was being voted out, said Mr. Bennett. If any individual was not getting a fair run on rehabilitation, it was mostly the fault of the R.S.A. Mr. Bennett went on to advise members who had complaints to ventilate them. through the maehinery devised by the R.S.A. The correct method of approach at any time for a man was on rehabilitation finance was through his local committee. These channels of complaint had been fought hard for by the R.S.A.

Referring to those men on Crown blocks, he said that they had a right to their section at a fixed wage, being nominally employed by the Land Department. However, they could not be discharged by the department. The only people who- could do that were the Land Settlement Board, through the Rehabilitation Department. There were cases when this would be necessary. It did not necessarily follow that because a man wore an R.S.A. badge that he was an Al fellow, he said.The only channel left through which to get the land, he continued) was?by 'compulsory acquisitiQh.' Uniess land that was slipping ha'ck could be obtained, there would; be quite a stfug'gle to get lahd. There was one thijig which should be kept in mind. The Uneconomic Farms Committee, formed some years ago, had supplied a great deal of information as to what was an economic unit under New Zealand conditions. It should have at least 12,000 lbs. of fat within three years. If ruAning sheep, it should have at least 800 to 1000. The association felt from last war experience that it should hang on to this economic unit, even at the expense of the number of farms. Sound and safe settlement was the object. Mr. Bennett reminded the meetiiig that nothing was got'for nothing under rehabilitation. "You're

getting the right to pa-y off a lot of mortgages," he said, "you're not getting anything for nothing." However, whatever had been paid for the land or improvements had no bearing on the deal when offered to the settler. If there was a sound reason for dissatisfaction in charges, the case could be reviewed. He emphasised the importance of inspecting a farm before taking it over. The Federated Farmers and other organisations and individuals could easily be consulted for an opinion on the property concerned. A vote of thanks was accorded Mr. Bennett at the conclusion of his talk.