LAND SETTLEMENT

Evening Post, Volume CVIII, Issue 83, 4 October 1929, Page 10

LAND SETTLEMENT

[THE £5,000,000 SCHEME

DEBATED IN HOUSE

SOME MIXED OPINIONS

The Land Laws "Amendment Bill, ■which , contains the Government's £5,000,000 laud settlement . scheme, came on for second reading, in the House of Representatives last night. Some . members were inclined to be critical of the proposals. The debate lasted from 7.30 p.m. until 3.30 a.m.

The Minister; of Lands (the Hon. G. W. Forbes) moved the second reading of ths.Bill, his remarks being reported in am-Jher column.

Mi. F. Waite (Eefon „ Clutha,} said he thought all parties recognised the value of any attempt at land settlement, for the prosperity of the whole community was wrapped up in that of the farmers. Tho Reform Party had already passed legislation enabling men to take up occupied lands, and had laid ddwn legislation providing for subdivision. It was all on the Statute Book. He. questioned whether there really was a land hunger in the Dominion. Some people seemed to think it was a crimo to have unoccupied land in the country, but the fact 'of the, matter was that it would bo a crime to break up some of the land and put men «n to it. They all agreed land settlement was desirable, but any settlement scheme inevitably meant some loss to the State. The Bill provided for the sale of the land at less than the cost of acquisition, roading, and general improvement. That showed a recognition on the part of those who had drawn it ■up that development charges could not be loaded ou to the land, otherwise the .settlers would be'hard up against it. Beferring to the drift, to the towns, he said that was inevitable if farmers could not.earn sufficient to make a comfortable living for themselves and their families. Mr. Waite said he bolieved the Bill was intended to be a genuine land settlement measure, but it looked strangely like a-scheme to give worki to the unemployed. One would not object, to a measure sthat did good in that way, .but it would not do to put into occupation lands of low fertility merely in an attempt to give unemployment relief. The proposed' Development1 Board consisted of half a dozen of the most conservative gentlemen in New Zealand, and probably the Minister was the most conservative of them. The'majority of the members could not be expected to rush their fences in regard to land settlement. While the Bill' was designed to carry out land settlement, it seemed to him to be like a motor-car that could go neither backwards nor forwards. In. conclusion, Mr. Waite said that equality of tho country, with the town in the matter of education, dental facilities, and other services would do more' to foster, land settlement than all the Acts put on the Statute Book. ;

"AN IRISH STEW."

Mr. "W. L. Martin (Labour, Baglan) said it was absurd to ask if there was a land hunger in Now Zealand, for the facts were self-evident. The defeat of the Eeform Party had been brought about by its lack of a land policy, and the people realised that to leave the party in power would be to have stagnation in land settlement. In addition to the absence of a land policy, the Eeform Government had starved the State Advances Department, and had thus contributed to the economic trials of the man on the land. The Minister had j displayed a surprising enthusiasm for the job in hand. When he first saw the Bill he was inclined to think it was something like an Irish stew, and that it would not get them very far, mainly for the reason that practically every provision of the; Bill was already on the Statute Book. He wouldhave preferred the" Minister to get on with the job instead of endeavouring to pass . legislation. The country had been waiting for a start to be made with the progressive land policy, which was such a feature of the United Party's programme, but it I'ooked as if. they would have to wait' another twelve months before a start was made in earnest. If the Government had made an earlier start he believed it would •■ liave gone a long way towards solving the' unemployment problem. From personal experience he knew there was a genuine hunger for land, particularly for dairy farms. He firmly believed that the day of the big dairying farm iad gone, as it was possible for men to make a good living off comparatively small areas. There were large areas of Crown and Native lands which could lie brought into cultivation and made available for settlement. He was not enamoured of the composition of the board provided for under the Bill, but apparently the Minister was prepared to "accept full responsibility. It seemed there was a danger that they would duplicate the work of some of the boards which had been set up under the various Acts. '••'

CAPABLE OF MUCH GOOD.

"Mr. W. J. Poison (Independent, Stratford) intimated that though the Bill did not go as far. as he wished, and- it was more or less colourless, he would support it, for a great deal might toe done if.it was properly administered. He referred to the extenfof land reversion in the last ten years, said a great deal of it was in respect of freehold land. He believed that the difficulties in those cases could be surmounted if a tribunal were set up to deal with the question. Settlement would be much more satisfactorily dealt with if that were considered. We should not tackle now settlement land while better class land Which had been allowed to revert lay idle.' He had hoped the Government would have brought down a comprehensive land settlement measure dealing with' all land's, including native lands, which had been entirely ignored. He regretted nothing had been done to help the freeholder in the back country. The proposed board did not have sufficient new blood on it. He condemned its constitution, and said it should consist of men of vigoui", not tired heads of departments. He suggested satirically that «t Coroner and an Official Assignee should be added to it. The duty of the board should be to develop all land, and not merely a particular section of it. Ho stressed the need for road access where settlement was opened up. Eedueed or suspended local rating taxation, and freedom . from land tax was also important, and more important still was the need for the cheapest possible money. tlnlesß these things'were done the settlers would be forced off their land. To do any real good to the back country, the board must get to work at once. He advised the Minister to concentrate first of all on the developed and arrested pastoral lands before attending ,to less valuable Crown lands. He suggested that finance for sound settlement should be provided by fostering the rural credits system. The Bill practically proposed the creation of a further lending authority. He did not think that was necessary; rather should they seek to co-ordinate the existing ones, of which there were too many. He wanted to see the Bill extended so .as to be more comprehensive. IMPORTANCE OF SECURITY OF j TENURE. < Mr. W. J. Broadfoot. (United, Wai%»m?o) wefcome4 the Bill, espeeSaMg as.

it was proposed to spend £5,000,000. In the past millions of money had been spent in the wrong direction. Ho did not like the clause s-etting up the board, as it seemed to him that the board would be paramount to Cabinet. Cabinet could not settle land without the sanction of the board. Mr. H. G. Dickie (Eeform, Patea): "■What does the Cabinet know about land settlement, anyway 2 The composition of the board was criticised by Mr. Broadfoot, who went on to say he was in favour of setting up advisory boards in the various districts, as local knowledge was of importance. He stressed tho importance of giving those who took up land security of tenure, which was the basis of successful land settlement. The Maoris should not be overlooked, and if the Government lost money in assisting the Natives to take up land he for one would not regret it. He urged the development of idle lands in preference to settling land which had already been broken in. Intensified land settlement would do much to relieve the bur,den under which the farmer was sui-vering a-v the present time. He boi'eved tbt* befor< very l^ng New Zealand would have *o follow the example set by the last British Government and introduce derating on rural lands.

"BEAR LOSSES CHEERFULLY."

Mr. A. M. Samuel (Eeform, Thames) trusted that the £5,000,000 would be spent anually, for if it were a tremendous amount of good would be done. The board would have to be cautious, but the Minister would have to- absolve it if losses wero made. Losses should be borne cheerfully by the State because tho bringing in of virgin land would create a lasting asset. He regretted that no provision was made for the group system of settlement, which would be a good means' of grappling with the unemployment problem. A road-makiug scheme should be started in conjunction with a settlement scheme; that would enable men to settle down more quickly than would otherwise be the ease. . The debate was continued by 23 other speakers before the Minister rose to reply at 3.25 o'clock jthis morning. Mr. Forbes spoke very briclly, and promised that any suggestions for improvement would receive full consideration when the Bill was in Committee.

The- Houso rose at 3.30 a.m,