The Star. Delivered every evening by 5 o'clock in Hawera, Manaia, Normanby, Okaiawa, Eltham, Mangatoki, Kaponga, Awatuna, Opunake, Otakeho, Manutahi, Alton, Hurleyville, Patea, Waverley. TUESDAY, MAY 20, 1913. LANDS FOR SETTLEMENTS POLICY.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume LXV, Issue LXV, 20 May 1913, Page 4

The Star. Delivered every evening by 5 o'clock in Hawera, Manaia, Normanby, Okaiawa, Eltham, Mangatoki, Kaponga, Awatuna, Opunake, Otakeho, Manutahi, Alton, Hurleyville, Patea, Waverley. TUESDAY, MAY 20, 1913. LANDS FOR SETTLEMENTS POLICY.

It is a remarkable fact that schemes which a few years ago were recommended to the electorate by the Libj eral-Labor combination as marking a new era of political enlightenment, the beginning of a new heaven and a new earth, now meet with the strongest disapproval in the Radical camp. A j great deal of the labor legislation has met with this fate, the land legislation, we are told, has not checked reaggregation, even the cheap money scheme is "suspect," and the land for settlements law is coming in for quite a good share of 'hostile criticism. In ) reference to the last-mentioned subject. Mr O'Regan, a Wellington solicitor who at one time was in Parliament a lid now contributes a good deal to the Wellington papers from the point of view of advanced Radicalism, has lately given figures which certainly do arrest attention. He quotes from the last issue of the New Zealand Year Book (pages 520-23) to show that "we had purchased up to March 31st, 1912, 223 estates, totalling 1,296,942 acres. The purchase money amounted to £5,948,071. which, with £504,142 for surveying, roading, etc., brought the total cost to £6,452,149. For this enormous outlay the reader will naturally think that a great number of settlers have been placed, but as a matter of fact, for our six and a half million pounds we have 5060 settlers, representing in all 16,936 persons." On which he. observes: "Truly a magnificent result after nearly twenty years of so-called progressive land legislation!" The writer proceeds: "Of the total area acquired, 91,593 acres, representing an annual value of £6262, were unlet, and it would be interesting to know what is to become of this land. It would likewise be interesting, although the information has not been vouchsafed us, to ascertain the difference between the amount of the purchase money paid, and the land tax valuation. Certainly it would be found that, in spite of the protests from time to time about excessive valuations, the State has paid much more than the true value as shown by the valuations for land tax purposes. Another interesting piece of information would be the loss of land tax revenue by reason of the purchase of estates and the consequent extinction of the land tax in respect of them. If the amount paid in excess of valuations were added to the loss of land tax it would be found that the purchase of land is, fiscally speaking, a huge blunder. As a matter of fact, however, the figures I have quoted are quite enough to show that the scheme as a means of promoting settlement is a miserable failure. The settlers who have been placed on the acquired estates have been nursed in order to silence criticism by making it appear that everybody "is satisfied. Nevertheless reaggregation is evidently proceeding

apace in respect of this particular class of land, for, according to the census returns, in live years there has been a falling off in the population of Cheviot by over 300 persons! Another fact to be borne in mind is that the purchase of estates has contributed materially to inflate the value of contiguous private land, and this must not merely enrich the adjacent land-' owners, but tend to make land less accessible to men of small means. The slightest consideration of the facts will convirce anyone that the Land for Settlement Act is a piece of political botchwork —an admirable thing for squatters, land agents, and 'experts,' but a mischievous institution for the public. As a settlement of the land problem it is worse than useless, for it must protract the controversy inseparable from the most fundamental of social questions." From most other sources this severe criticism would be brushed aside as mere Toryism, but some other reply will have to be found to a Radical impeachment. Mr o'Regan proceeds to argue that, though the Massey Government are not responsible for the legislation, they can use it to buy out their friends. It is attributed to Mr Gladstone that he declared that any attempt at land nationalisation, wholesale resumption, must be folly or confiscation. Radicals in New Zealand say that here the folly has been amply demonstrated and must be stopped; but it would seem from what many of them say that they are not unprepared to advocate the other alternative.