The Dominion. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 15, 1942. SOLDIER SETTLEMENT

Dominion, Volume 36, Issue 17, 15 October 1942, Page 4

The Dominion. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 15, 1942. SOLDIER SETTLEMENT

There is one matter on which there is a consensus of opinion, and it is that the settlement of returned servicemen on the land must be the basis of the Dominion’s rehabilitation programme. As such it should be receiving the most careful attention. The financial aspect, mentioned by the Prime Minister in a recent statement is important, but by no means all-important. There are big issues to be decided and vital decisions to be made. The first is regarding the land to be made available, and the tenure to be offered. Last year Mr. Nash stated that where a soldier “buys a farm or block and is lent money by the State Advances Corporation to buy that block of land and erect buildings on it, even up to 100 per cent, that land will be freehold.”

The Minister of Finance also drew a distinction between Crown lands which, lie said, “denotes most lands originally held by the Crown,” and “settlement land acquired under the Lands for Settlement Act,” and when asked whether that meant giving the soldiers the freehold Mr. Nash replied: “Yes, we will sell some of the land.if the soldiers desire it.” Here is the basic consideration. The long and successful experience of the Dominion in the settlement of land has demonstrated beyond -question the advantages of the system of occupation with right of purchase. Largely because of it this country was able, in the face of world competition, to establish and maintain markets in Great Britain and there can be no doubt that it suits the particular requirements of New Zealand farmers. There is a world of’ difference between men going on to farms to make them their own and men taking up holdings with no other prospect than to be State tenants or sharemilkers all their lives.

Then there is the question of the selection of men for the holdings. In the instances mentioned by the Prime Minister there will be no margin of security for the advances, so that everything will depend upon the capacity and the experience of those who acquire the properties. Some, if fortunate enough to secure a holding in or near the districts where they had previously been engaged in farm work, will be able to go ahead with confidence. In other cases it may be necessary for committees of practical farmers, with long experience of local conditions, to advise both with regard to the possibilities of a farm and the best method of working it. There is every reason to believe that this assistance will be willingly given and that the soldier settlers will be encouraged and helped to make a success of their holdings.

With men returning in increasing numbers these problems call for ever more attention. The announcement of what will be done for those who intend to buy a. farm touches only the fringe of the matter. Which, of its big holdings, does' the State intend to make available and on what terms ? What holdings suitable of improvement and subdivision has the Government earmarked for use *n this way ? The question is by no means solely a matter for the Government and the men who want to go on the land. In the much wider post-war readjustments that seem possible in the international sphere this country may be faced with knotty problems, so that its primary industries promise to be of ever greater importance in ensuring economic stability. If for that reason alone the basis of the soldier settlement plans must be sound, so devised that both the men and the State will benefit by their industry, the former by making their farm their own, their homes their own, and the State by the outflow of produce, of the highest quality, to the markets of the world.