LAND FOR THE WORKLESS

Evening Post, Volume CXV, Issue 32, 8 February 1933, Page 6

LAND FOR THE WORKLESS

The chief points of . criticism directed against the Small Farmi. (Relief of Unemployment) Bill yesterday were that the Government already possessed full powers in other legislation to do what was proposed by the Bill, and that money for small farms would be taken from the Unemployment Fund. It is correct that the Bill mainly rgpeats the provisions of other laws for promoting land settlement; but it simplifies and collects those provisions so that administration will be easier. So long as the organisation is not duplicated or the Unemployment Fund loaded^ with too heavy a charge for land settlement services rendered by 'other departments there can be little objection to this simplifying process. The legislation itself is only the beginning and not the end of the small farms project. The public wish to see progress. Another Act added to New, Zealand's multifarious laws for land settlement will do no harm; but it is for the Government to prove that it does good. The test will be the settlement of families on the land at a cost which gives them a reasonable prospect of success. As we have stated-previously," the main factor in determining success or failure will be the price paid for the land.. If the Government accepts land from farmers who declare that they cannot make a living from it and pays well for that land, it will be giving relief to the selling farmer and the new unemployed settler will continue a charge. on the Unemployment Fund. '■/'•■ . The second ground for objection to the Bill, that"it will be financed from the Unemployment Fund, should, be, ariswered with facts and figures. When unemployment taxation was raised it was intended that some part of the fund should be devoted to constructive relief—-projects which would take men qff relief permanently. Such measures are essential if the Dominion is to make any real; progress, in the cure of unemployment and not merely to wait for a turn in overseas markets. They may be expected to cost more initially, but they are an investment of'capital which will yield dividends of greater earning power for the workers whoare assisted. The; only question for determination is: What part of 'the fund- can be spared for ,this purpose without cutting, too heavily into the the sum) available-for week to week relief? Allocations for ordinary relief, work have been reduced and there has teen a hint of further reduction. .Obviously, this process cannot continue'unless there is a reduction in the numbers for whom provision has to.be made. The Government should clear up the position with a complete statement of its expenditure from the Unemployment Fund, showing particularly the cost of capital and subsidising schemes, the benefits secured by these methods, and their relative value in ultimately relieving the strain on the fund.'