LOOKING TO THE LAND

Evening Post, Volume CX, Issue 147, 19 December 1930, Page 10

LOOKING TO THE LAND

In the statement just issued reviewing the Government's land development work the statement is made that the real test of the policy is to be found in the number of rural holdings made available and the average cost per settler. The total number of holdings selected in the period under review was 574, and the .average cost per settler was £1343. The selections comprise Crown lands opened for development and private holdings purchased and subdivided. On purchased land there have been 182 selections, and some 46 more have yet to be taken up. The purchased lands have' cost £737,000. It is not slated whether this is the purchase price or the price paid, plus the cost of subdivision and roading for selection. In either case, however, the cost is rather startling. It means an expenditure of over £3200 for each settler, and we .are not informed whether this is the total sum involved or whether an additional amount has been needed for housing, fencing, farm buildings, and other improvements. Obviously, settlement at such prices cannot be extensive in a time when loan money, for any purpose, is scarce and costly. The statement, unfortunately, does not afford sufficient information to enable us to see how the average cost of selections, has been brought down to £1343. Presumably this .reduced average is 'due to the inclusion, of Crown lands which have been made available at'the cost of roading and subdivision. A more complete analysis of the work done would be useful. Indeed, it is essential if the public are to judge fairly' the relative merits of settlement on improved and costly land, or on unimproved land which calls for capital, labour, and experience before it is brought into production. It is most desirable that such a judgment should be soundly based .if we are not, in enthusiasm for land settlement, to follow a course which may involve us later in the expensive necessity for revaluing and writingdown holdings. We must consider the circumstances of the time. When the Reform Government was in office it was argued, in defence of its inaction in closer settlement, that the time was not favourable—that land Avould have to be bought on the basis of its productive value when produce prices were high, and that this would severely handicap the new settlers if prices should fall. Applying this argument to present conditions, closer settlement of improved lands should now be feasible if owners are prepared to sell on productive values. But are they? Is it not more probable that they will expect ?rom the Government a price based upon a recovery of the produce markets; and the Government, if it buys, must gamble on such a recovery? There remains the possibility of accelerating settlement on lands al- ' ready in Government possession. The Government appears to be alive to the possibilities from the account that is given of its activity in developing various areas. But much of the development is partly experimental. The cost cannot be stated exactly. On the Ngakuru block, Rotorua, for example, the cost of development is estimated at £7 16s an acre, and at Te Kawhatau, in the Waikato, good dairying country is expected to be developed at a net cost of £22 an acre. If the term "good dairying country" has the generally accepted meaning, this land is cheap. Whether the £7 16s Rotorua land is relatively cheap or dear depends, of course, on its productive value, which the statement docs not estimate. While the work is experimental, caution would advise that development should not be rushed. But there is a further point which may be taken into account: lhat much money is now being spent in ways that offer no return at all.

Land settlement will certainly give us something. This point is emphasised by Mr. C. D. Morpeth in reviewing the remedies for depression in a carefully-considered article which appears in our news columns to-day. He applies it to the proposal for a bonus on gold production; but it is even more applicable as an argument for the vigorous land settlement policy which he also advocates. We have idle labour and idle land. We may employ the labour apart from the land, and produce no asset of enduring value, or we may bring Innd and labour together. The process of development may prove expensive (especially if the 14s a day wage is maintained: — a wage that the settler developing the land for himself cannot earn), but we have the reproductive asset as a result. It appears to us that, at least while we are under the necessity of finding employment, the case for land development is strong, even though the development cost may afterwards have to be written down.