The Star. Delivered every evening by 6 o'clock in Hawera, Manaia, Normanby, Okaiawa, Eltham, Mangatoki, Kaponga, Awatuna, Opunake. Otakeho, Manutahi, Alton, Hurleyville. Patea. and Waverley. SATURDAY, APRIL 8, 1911. THE LAND QUESTION.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume LXI, Issue LXII, 8 April 1911, Page 4

The Star. Delivered every evening by 6 o'clock in Hawera, Manaia, Normanby, Okaiawa, Eltham, Mangatoki, Kaponga, Awatuna, Opunake. Otakeho, Manutahi, Alton, Hurleyville. Patea. and Waverley. SATURDAY, APRIL 8, 1911. THE LAND QUESTION.

Speaking at Kaiapoi the other evening Mr Buddo, Acting-Minister of Lands' devoted a good deal of attention to the question oi; land settlement. There was I as is usual in Ministerial speeches, a cer-1 tarn amount of self-advertisement as to the great things that had been accomplished during the past two or three years, a matter in respect* of which we dare say an adverse critic could easily present another view. But, passing over that aspect of the subject, Mr Buddo quoted statistics which appear to show that if the needs of settlement are to be met there must be still greater activity in the future in respect of the acquisition of private estates. He stated that during the past three years the number of settlers placed on Crown lands and Land for Settlements lands had been 6945, and that the area settled had been 3,954,842 acres. A good deal of the country must have been pretty rough, or the average area for each individual could not have been so great under the present law. But it is the figures he gave as to the future,which demand most attention, and show the nature of the problem in front of Parliament. He stated that the amount of Crown lands now available for settlement is 1,750,----547 acres suitable for small settlements, and 2,168,892 acres suitable for pastoral purposes. And his point was that if in the last three years 3,954,842 acres had been settled, a very short time must elapse, if settlement was to be pushed on as rapidly, before the Government would not have an acre left to offer to the people. Even including the possibilities of native land being made available, he still looked forward to an early day on which there would be no Crown or native land left for selection. Assuming that this correctly represents the position, then the State acquisition of private estates must provide land for future settlement. This is inevitable. The only question is by what method. A short experience has shown that the scheme of borrowing to purchase estates for subdivision and leasing has broken down. It involves the raising of enormous capital, and there is Ministerial authority for saying that this cannot be continued without limit. In the last Land Bill it was sought to legalise a plan under . which the landowners would be compelled to lease their lands, but the scheme was so crude and inequitable that the measure was not taken beyond the Select Committee stage. The graduated tax has been pushed to the verge of confiscation, but it does not appear to have answered expectations, though judging by the

number of subdivisions advertised in I various parts of the Dominion, estates that were likely to sell have been cut up freely. The big estate has to go. On all hands it is admitted that the claims of settlement are paramount. But the difficulty is that as yet no one has devised a satisfactory and equitable method of dealing with the question. Mr Massey and a number of his supporters favor a system of buying, subdividing, and re-selling the small holdings on the freehold system. Against this objectors urge that it would permit of re-aggregation. It is rejoined that the freehold title of these subdivided lands might be loaded with a condition to prevent re-aggregation. How that would work is not altogether clear. If it would work the Opposition plan would seem to be the best. The proceeds of the sales of the small freeholds would automatically provide fresh funds, without recourse to State borrowing, for the purchase of additional estates; and the scheme would give the Dominion an ever increasing population of small freeholders, the most valuable population for any State to possess. The Lands for Settlement policy has broken down of its own weight, not because there is not a demend for small areas, not because the right men are not available to take up the lands, not because there are not estates which might be profitably acquired, but because the Government, in seeking to please an important section of their party, insist on the leasehold tenure for the subdivisions. Experience shows that many millions of capital would be necessary to convert the big estates into a huge State leasehold, and that the' borrowing of the money would impose a great strain on the financial credit of the Dominion, and would probably affect its power to borrow cheaply for the construction of public works. Mr Buddo's speech, however, shows that there must be further acquisition of these big. estates unless land settlement is to languish, and evidently the new Parliament will have to reconsider the matter very earnestly.