LAND FOR SETTLEMENT.

Digger (Invercargill RSA), Issue 19, 23 July 1920, Page 14

LAND FOR SETTLEMENT.

AREAS FOR IMMIGRANTS, CLAIMS OF RETORNED MEN. FARMERS' UNION OPINION. The action of the Government in holding all land for returned soldiers was criticised by members of the executive of the Auckland-Farmers' Union recently. In reference to the suggestion that provision should be made for settling come of the imm'grants on the land on the block system, together with discaarged soldiers, the Under-Secretary for La.xls Mr T. N. Brodri-ck, stated in a letter ii. rcply to a communication from the union, that this system had already been trie i but had proved very unpopular with j cturn.ed men. Two large suitable blocks ir North Auckland, aggregating about 10,000 acres, were offered for settlement on the block system, but after lying available for about two years without finding any soldiers who were willin-g to work on them as proposed the scheme had to be abandoned. The selections were allotted to the soldiers in the usual manner, and were lmmediateJy selected. The Department had a similar experience in Canterbury. All suitable Crown and settlement lands were set apart for selection by discharged New Zealand soldiers only, and until the -wanfs of these were satisfied it was not likely that any lands would be made available for partie-s of immigrants. Mr J. E. Makgill said the reply was most unsatisfactory. M.any of the immigrants had to keep themselves until they found employment. If they were given the work of roading these blocks they would be enabled to mamtain themselves, and also assist in opening up the land. The Under-Secretary for Lands had mentioned that the land was tied up for New Zealand soldiers. He was satisfied ttiat was an exceedingly bad policy, for the Government was hampering settlement. It was only right for them to look after their sol-diers, but to tie up the whola of the land for soldiers was a mistake, for there was a great deal of land that would not; be taken up by them. Speaking from memory, he said the C'ommissioner of Crown Lands for Auckland, in a report, had stated that this policy was hampering settlement, for the board had had to pass over suitable civilian applicants. Why should the Government rejeet suitable immigrants who required land when the whole coun-t-ry was crying out for settlers and the need for increased production was selfevident? The union should take-a strong stand in the matter. He thought that immigrants would be quite prepared to do pioneering work, and the union should urgo the- Government to put these people on the land. There was far more land than the New -Zealand soldiers wonld take up, ri e Government was hampering New Zt : and getting its fair proportlon of im;: p-ation from Britain. He moved that e executive affirm the principle that ti Government sTiould provide employment or immigrants in opening up the land. Mr S. C. ourmeaux seconded the mction. He aid they all advocated that New Zealand soldiers should have first say. but in m, ny cases they would not take up certain classes of land, which was still being retained for them. That should not be the case. Canada and other countries offered land free to immigiants, and New Zealand, if soldiers did not want the land, should throw it open to other people. Colonel R. C. Allen said that as a mattey of practical politics it would be hard to throw land open to immigrants, fo- they would never convince the public that the soldiers would not take it up. "Ihere would be too much-of an outciy. Ihe chairman, Mr Ross, said that when the idea of settling soldiers on the land was started the union went to a great deal f>f trouble to ascertain what it would cosc They started with modest views, an J now the Government had run into millions. To a very great extent it was oi' no benefit to the country at all. The Government had bought out the small settler and given him a great price. If it had spent a quarter of the money it would have got the land much cheaper.