DRIFTING

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1286, 15 November 1911, Page 6

DRIFTING

A question that a good many people have no doubt asked themselves at one time or another is: "How is it, seeing that the simple and obvious policy for a country such as New Zealand—the 'policy best calculated to promote the prosperity of every section of the community—is the speedy settlement of the waste lands of the country, the whole efforts of the Government are not concentrated on the task of opening up our idle lands to the settlers who are eager to work No one doubts the advantage this would be to the countryall political parties advocate it. The astounding thing, however, is that seeing the unanimity of opinion on the subject, the Government has not carried.out what it and everyone else very properly proclaim to be necessary. Why has the Government neglected the magnificent opportunities it has had in this direction? It is really impossible to answer the question. There is no good reason why Ministers possessed of any sense of responsibility, and having even a glimmering idea of statesmanship, should shirk the task. It is inconceivable that they should not realise its importance, lot the fact remains that this question, which is of such immense concern to every class, has been tinkered with in a half-hearted and unsystematic fashion ever since Sir John M'Kenzie relinquished the portfolio of Lands. The other day biR Joseph Ward, who is the present Minister for Lands, placed before the country a mass of figures showing the progress of land settlement from the Ministerial point of view Ho is not to be blamed for making the results appear as pleasing as possible, but he only gives one side or the question. For instance, he did not tell the public that the Lands Iteport laid before Parliament in the closing days of the last session shows that of the ordinary Crown lands taken up last year (881,443 acres by 1493 selectors), no less than 644,695 acres consisted of pastoral runs which were taken up by fifty-two people. Nor did the iitiME Minister, in reviewing the I Position, make any reference to [ Table 22 of the same Parliamentary | paper, which shows that during the two ve months ended March 31 last ! no less than 265 settlers forfeited or surrendered their holdings, the total area thus affected being over 300 000 acres. These surrenders and forfeitures should be set against the settlement which has taken place during the same period. Another point: in discoursing on the number of selectors who had been put on the land, Sir Joseph Ward waxed verv eloquent. The actual figures given lor last year (ordinary Crown lands) was 1494 An interesting little table attached to the Lands Report shows that of this number 233 took ua holdings of less than one acre each. And this is classed as land settlc™nt - , The same tabic shows that 494 took up areas of from 1 to 50 acres. How many of this 494 arc aulc to earn a living off their holdings? So it has been for years Quite misleading figures are placed before the public; but even when these figures are taken at their face value they go to show that settlement is lagging Of course Sir Joseph Ward overloaded as he is with other portfolios, has simply allowed the Department of Lands to drift It is in many respects the most vitpllv important Department of the State —on the primary producers of the country everything depends. Every fresh settler placed on the waste lands of the country is an additional wealth producer; every additional acre of land brought under cultivation contributes something towards promoting the general prosperity of the country—in fact on every possible ground of individual self-interest and national well-being our public men should be striving their utmost to turn our idle lauds into profitable occupation. And instead of this, we find the portfolio of Lands taken up by an already over-weighted member of the. Government, who apparently distrusts his colleagues, and a pollcv of drift ordßfcn where there should 'ha flcrw oaargy and enthusiastic enterprise.