MINISTER AND PRESS

Greymouth Evening Star, 30 November 1926, Page 8

MINISTER AND PRESS

PURCHASE OF LAND WELLINGTON, Nov. 27. In answer to an article in a North Island newspaper, calling him “New Zealand’s Chief Pessimist,” the Hon. Mr. McLeod, Minister for Lands, made the following reply to-day: — “The Press controversy in regard to land settlement has been carried to the point where it is necessary to get down to first principles. I have no reason to complain of the treatment meted out to me by the Press generally. As a public man I am quite prepared to accept fair criticism. My fight is specially with one newspaper and those who have echoed its views. The policy of that paper is to throw open the large areas of unoccupied Crown lands in the Auckland province, while the policy of the Government is to consolidate as far as possible the position of the many hundreds of settlers who are battling against tremendous odds on similar lands and on swamp aieas throughout the province mentioned. All the money which the Government has been able to borrow through the Advances to Settlers ami < ‘.her sources has been and still is being used lor this purpose. In this policy the Government has the support of every practical farmer prepared to sign his name, while the policy of the paper in question is backed up by .and agents and those who wish to unload on the general taxpayer of the country thousands upem thousands of acres of second and tii.’r'-class lands, the owners of which are apparently not prepared to st I a shilling in the development <>. the land. I have before me a list of owners of over 100,000 acres of land similar to that under discussion which has at different times been offered to the Government for purchase for close settlement purposes and in that list appears an area of SOOO acres offered in the name of persons who, I understand, are closely associated with the ownership of the newspaper making the demand. While retaining the position of Minister for Lands for this Dominion 1 will consider it any first duty to do what I can towards assisting the small settler, who to-day is having a hard struggle, and at the same time protect the public purse against those who are prepared to foist land upon the Crown at what, in my opinion, is three or four times its present-day value.” NEWSPAPER’S REPLY (Special to “Star.”) * AUCKLAND, Nov. 29. In this morning’s leader, the “Herald” replies to Mr. McLeod under the caption, “An Angry Minister”. Il states: The Minister of Lands has been so stung Ly criticism of himself and his DepaMment, for its Attitude toward land settlement, that he has replied with an outburst far surpassing anything he has perpetrated before. If this is the best Mr. McLeod can do in his own defence, he would be better advised to remain silent. His reply taking the form of an attack on the ‘Herald,’Os inconsistent within itself. It entirely misses the point of the criticism which evoked it. It misrepresents the policy of the ‘Herald’ toward land settlement, a policy followed long before Mr. McLeod became Minister of Lands, and a policy it will follow long after his tenure of that office has been forgotten. It is hardly in keeping with the dignity of, a Minister of the Crowd. The statement is inconsistent, because the Minister first says the policy of the ‘Herald’ is to throw open large areas of unoccupied Crown lands in Auckland province. A little later he insinuates its desire to have the State

purchase privately owned estates for subdivision. The point of the last criticism is missed because the Minister made no attempt to jusitfy his own outburst of pessimism regarding the farming outlook' which, as the ‘Herald’ quite justifiably said might do a farmer untold harm through damaging his credit in the eyes of those with capital to invest. It is difficult enough already for farmers to secure the advances they need, without the value of their security being impugned by members of the Cabinet. This was the real point of the article which has made Mr. McLeod so angry. He conveniently ignored it.. His misrepresentation lies in his suggestion that the ‘Herald’ advocates the purchase of private estates. This is not in accordance with fact. If Mr. McLeod does not know it he should. He -loses dignity when he descends- to personal attacks. For all these reasons, his reply is a pitiable effort, its weakness becoming more palpable the more it is analysed. As Mr. McLeod has so completely misrepresented the attitudes of the ‘Herald,’ and incidentally made offensive remarks about its motives, based on Ms own false premises, it is well to re-state the position.” This the article proceeds to do, and concludes: “As the crowning piece in his statement, the Minister says he was offered an area of some 8,000, acres in the name of persons closely associated with the ownership of the ‘Herald.” If this was so, and he wished for guidance, reference to the columns of the ‘Herald’ would have told him quite definitely to decline the purchase. What it has said and still says is very clear on the point. Mr. McLeod ignores this as he ignores many other things in pouring out an angry tirade, which fails completely to answer the ‘Herald’s’ criticism, directed solely at his policy and in no sense at his person.”