Evening Post. FRIDAY, APRIL 19, 1912. GOVERNMENT AND LAND.

Evening Post, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 93, 19 April 1912, Page 6

Evening Post. FRIDAY, APRIL 19, 1912. GOVERNMENT AND LAND.

As we pointed out in our leading article on Wednesday, the Premier and some of hia colleagues have indulged in a good deal of strenuous talk about pushing land settlement, but without .indicating the lines along which they propose to push. it. The Premier's intimate acquaintance and sympathy with the needs of the farmer and his selection of three prominent advocates of the leasehold for places in h'u> Cabinet are a sufficient guarantee of his earnestness in the cause of close settlement. But hi* difference from these three gentlemen and from other members of hie party on the fundamental question of tenure naturally makes progress a difficult matter. In his speech at Eltiham Mr. Mackenzie suggested that this question is not so important as it has commonly been supposed to be. Fundamental it oerfcainly is, but it k equally clear that it does not cover the ■whole ground. The reception given to the Land Settlement Finance Bill showed that leaseholders and freeholders can lay asddo their differences when a scheme of land settlement is produced which does not raise the issue of public ownership. The advocate of the. leasehold objects to the alienation by the State of the freehold of a sitfgle acre of the small estate that xemainß to it. He also objects— and here he ha* the hearty support of many who do' not accept the principal article of his creed j —to the purchase of estates by the Crown for the mere purpose of selling them again. The land for settlement policy has accordingly been a leasehold policy, and it is likely to remain so. I But it has long been obvious that this policy cannot bo indefinitely pushed, and the chances ' are that it .will not be pushed very much, further, It is at any rate certain that ib cannot be pushed fast enough to keep pace -with the demand for land or wjth the need of the country for rapid development. "The Government,'' said Sir John Findlay in one of hie election speeches, " has borrowed nearly £j6.000,000 already for the purchase of large estates, but unless we are prepared to add much more greatly and rapidly to our public debt adequate acquisitions to meet the demands of settlement cpuld not go on." Sir Joseph Ward and M*. J. A." Millar have alto expressed similar opinions. While leaseholders and freeholders were still busily engaged in fighting one another, and each party was strong enough to prevent the other from getting the- legislation that it desired, the Laud Settlement Finance Bill catno along and achieved the singular triumph of providing a scheme of land settlement that both parties could support. The reason for this triumph was that tho land to be dealt with under the Bill was neither Crown, land nor' land to be resumed by the Ciown. Tho object of <4h6, Bill ytM*-U> exubl* large fm&aid

estates already vested in private owners to be subdivided into a number of small freeholds, and the machinery provided was a State guarantee which would facilitate this process of ' subdivision among purchasers qualified to make a good use of the land, but not financially strong enough to finance tho purchase in the ordinary way. This Bill, which was first introduced in 1908, reached the Statute Book in the following year, and is now doing good work. Another schemo of great promise which kept almost equally clear of tho burning issue of land policy was outlined in Sir Joseph Ward's last Budget and embodied in the Family Settlement Lands Bill of 1911. Under this Bill the owner of a large estate could transfer it to the Crown at a price fixed by the Government, and take payment in debentures with a ten years' currency. The land was then to be disposed of in small areas on the deferred-payment system, the prices being determined by public auction or public tender T f the net proceeds, after deducting the cost of surveying, roading, and administration, exceeded the price fixed by the Government, the vendor' was to get the benefit of it. If, on the other hand, there was a shortage, the amount of the debentures was to be similarly reduced. As under th© Land Settlement Finance Act, the Government was thus to become the agent in a large scheme of subdivision without the necessity of borrowing and -without incurring any liability that could injure ife credit or create an appreciable burden as long as due circumspection was shown in the administration. In one respect the Bill disappointed the hopes held out by the Budget. The Budget spoke of applying the scheme to lands acquired either voluntarily or compulsorily from private owners, but there is no machinery for compulsion in the Bill. With this exception the ißill is, in the main, an excellent one, and the idea of working it in connection with a scheme of railway or road construction is also admirable. Our only serious objection to the measure is that its name — the Family Settlement Lands .Bill— is misleading. The substance is admirable, -and we should be glad to 6ee the Premier giving body to his vague talk about land settlement by taking it up, expounding it, and pushing it.