Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

Land Settlement

It is a pity members of the Opposition should find fault with the Minister for Lands, the Hon. F, Langstone,merely because he has not been active in spending money on Ijind settlement. The Government as a whole has been so willing to spend that it is a welcome change to find a Minister willing to admit that he has no justification for spending. When Mr Langstone. says he will not buy land for closer settlement unless the price is' reasonable, and unless there are possibilities for development, he deserves to be applauded and encouraged • instead of criticised, New Zealand has suffered enough from State land settlement ventures condemned to failure at the outset by the high price paid for land. Moreover, even if land prices were now reasonable, it is highly questionable, to say the least, whether the Government should seek to encourage further development of the primary industries. Such development is of benefit to the country only if it can be assumed that the overseas market for primary produces: is an expanding one. And all the available evidence goes to show that this .market*must contract. .It is significant that Mr R. G. Menzies, the Commonwealth AttorneyGeneral, who has been in London to discuss trade questions with the British Government, should find it expedient on his return to warn Australians that their future lies in the secondary industries. What is true for Australia is true’ for New Zealand, since both countries exploit the same overseas markets. It must be feared, however,’that Mr Langstone’s unwillingness to spend money on land settlement is due rather to the high price of land than to an appreciation of the weakness of the case for sinking more capital in primary development, since he is apparently not averse to developing marginal - lands. It can be said with some confidence, that, whatever justification there may be fpr -promoting land settlement by subdivision, there is none at. all for bringing marginal lands into cultivation. *

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19380908.2.50

Bibliographic details

Press, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22501, 8 September 1938, Page 10

Word Count
328

Land Settlement Press, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22501, 8 September 1938, Page 10

Land Settlement Press, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22501, 8 September 1938, Page 10

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert