DISCHARGED SOLDIERS’ SETTLEMENT.

Taihape Daily Times, 15 October 1919, Page 6

DISCHARGED SOLDIERS’ SETTLEMENT.

BILL READ A SECOND TIME. f In the House'of Representatives on a Monday, _ The Hon. Guthrie moved the second reading of the Discharged Soldiers’ Settlement Amendment Bill, explaining that the widened provisions were .i intended to facilitate the ‘settlement of returned soldiers_ -' Sir Joseph‘Ward congratulated the . Minister on the splendid Work“ already done in the direction of settling son‘.iers on the land and for the extension of the privileges proposed in this Bill. I-le, however, felt bound to again ap-~ gpeal to the Premier to help those men 1 who were compelled to sell their farms” to -go into the forces and who were now unable to gt their farms back except at prices far beyond their means. He had many very strong cases put

beforehim and he thought the country would support the House in any action it took in- the interests of these men. ‘ . ’

A Mr Downie Stewart, Hon. Buddo, and Mr Young drew the attention or the Minister £75 special cases which they considered’ worthy of consideration. Mr Holland expressed the hope ‘flxat administration of the Act would no? he .clogged by oflicialdom. ~Mr Forbes expressed a. strong hope that the Government would put thecompulsory clauses into operation and so give soldiers good land on which to settle instead of dz'.?vving them into ,' the back country and the hill-tops. I ‘ M: Anderson strongly S'\'lppol'to'l| this view, but he thought home service men should not be so favourably treated as men who were actually in the trenches_ ‘

Mr 'Anstey. contended that compensation which would have to" be paid to dispossess men on large holdings would be so great that the soldiers would never be able to make the sec-

jsions pay. « Mr Isitt expressed the hope that the Governmentwould show a steady and determined front in the direction of enforcing the compulsory clauses_ , Hon. Hanan declared" that‘ land monopoly should be broken up by drastic graduated taxation, thus freeingdand for soldiers rather than acquiring it by purchase at extortionate‘ prices. _ b

Mr Wilford said the difference be-’ ‘tween the Liberal and ‘Reform sides of‘ ‘th House was that the former were prepared to take land for soldiers by compulsion and taxation. He advocated picking the eyes out of large? lholdings -near railways, and described areas in Hawke’s Bay which he considered suitable for the purpose. Mr Mccallum suggested as a check upon high-priced lands that soldleri settlers should join a union pledging‘ themselves not to purchase any highpriced private lands. If they could get Crown lands, well and good; but they should not buy private lands. Mr Massey said he had Watched the compulsory taking of lands for many years. Much of it had resulted in; enormous expense‘ to the country. He 1 outlined various systems of compulsory acquisition adopted since the tak- I ing of Cheviot estate down to the‘ Soldiers’ Settlement Act, 1915. Urderl that Act he found no difficulty in getiting land for soldiers at prices far heiow' market value, in some cases the condition being imposed that the land should be used for soldiers only; The record of lands and the cost in set--tling soldiers was most creditable. He estirnated:w:hen the War broke out Ithat We would be able to place 5000 soldiers on the land. He was glad to know thatnumber had been exceeded, and he believed before he was through with it we would not have far short of 10,000 soldier settlers. He depre-? pated the idea thatHaWke’s Bay coun':try was suitablefvtor all purposes. It was for the main part good sheep country, but_..much of it was too sub- . ject to droughtsto be suitable for dairy- \ ing. He thought the woi-k of settling; soldiers had been most successful. He heard a high official predict that 95 per cent. of the soldier settlers in the Wellington district would be successful, :but he would be quite satisfied if 80 per cent. were successful; The Hon. Russell condemned ‘the .'practice of buying high-priced land for soldiers and as a check against ex«tortionate prices he suggested that no ‘lands should be purchased on a land purchase board’s opinion unless that ‘opinion was fortified by the 3aDDI'OVBI

off the Valuation Department, for whose idea of real values he had the highest 1-espect_ ‘ _ Méssrs Rhodes (Thames), Talbot, Glover, Reed, Smith (Waimarincr), and Smith (Taramaki), supported the Bill The Minister, in‘ reply, said it was proposefl to establish a local Land -Phrchase Board to assist} in acquiring land for soldier's. - In some of‘ the larger districts, it might be necessary to appgint two such"’Boai-ds. Land aettlexnent was. proceeding at _a.rate fmore satisfactorytlian most. people imagined,’ M Only I;ol—:§la.yjover' 11,000 :“+had’ ;"beeAn' ’ purchased, and this

to t‘;:- cl:l2r.;ls of-' the Scuth ._sxfric:lll ‘veterans or home service men at presgcnt, as the first duty was L 0 the num who went to the front in the Late war and came back. There were between 4000 and 5000 home service men, and any attempt to provide these would considerably delay the work of providing fox; returned soldiers. The Was read a, S€C.o'l'-_l(]_ t,inlQ_ -0"-*1‘--1’-Int-—-—n.