Manawatu Daily Times Land Settlement

Manawatu Times, Volume XLIX, Issue 3477, 13 October 1926, Page 6

Manawatu Daily Times Land Settlement

In his address to the annual meeting of the Wairoa Farmers’ Co-operative Meat Company, Mr J. S. Jessep, chairman of the Company and vice-chairman of the New Zealand Meat Producers’ Board, strongly criticised the Government’s policy in connection with the settling of unoccupied Crown lands and idle native lands in various parts of the country.

In Mr Jessep’s opinion the policy pursued by the Government in this connection is one of the greatest drawbacks in our land settlement system. “We can only hope,” he says, ‘that sheer necessity will drive the Government to effectively tackle this proposition . . Year by year we have seen large areas of such land go further and further back, and in answer to our representations we have only been told of the difficulties in the way of settlement. Our enterprise has been tremendously hindered by the fact that these idle lands are not carrying any stock,”

In the improvement and development of this land, Mr Jessep sees a means of greatly reducing the present unemployed troubles. In his opinion, these men would be much better employed in bringing idle lands into production than at any other work that could possibly be provided for them. Ho maintains that it is not the price of land, but the increased cost -of working the land that is killing development. One of the best means of reducing this cost, he says, is to bring the whole of the idle lands in New' Zealand into production, so that the whole of the country will be carrying the cost. Though there may be a great amount of truth in Mr Jessep’s contention regarding certain native lands, we must differ from him when he includes the whole of the undeveloped and partially developed lands in the Dominion. We readily admit that deterioration on a large scale is going on in New Zealand to-day, not only in Native land, but also in Crown and privately-owned land. The cause of this deterioration lies deeper, and the remedy is much more difficult than most people are inclined to think.

In New Zealand rve have land that varies tremendously in point of quality—this term including advantages of situation as well as fertility. This variety comprises some of the most fertile flats such as we find in the Kairauga, to the poorest hill lands growing nothing but scrub and fern. Between these two extremes, we come to a point where the land is just—but only just— worth cultivating. Such land in economics is called the “marginal land.” On either side of this margin we will find much land which is slightly superior or slightly inferior, and the “marginal land” swings within this space in accordance with its productive value. It will be seen, therefore, that as we pass to poorer and poorer qualities of land, we eventually arrive at a point where the utility to be derived from the cultivation of the land becomes negligible—in other words, where cultivation becomes unprofitable. The question whether it is profitable to cultivate a certain piece of land depends, of course, on whether the receipts which will be obtained by selling its products will exceed the cost of cultivation. This in turn is greatly affected by the cost of production and the value of the products.

In New Zealand we have large areas of what may bo called “marginal land,” as well as land of lower quality. What is more, the present margin stands at a higher level than it did a few years ago owing to the persistent fall in the value of primary products. Duiing the period of high prices large areas of land came into production which, before as well as after, were unprofitable. Much was Native and Crown land, and it is these that are again reverting to their former state.

To 'bring 1 such land into profitable cultivation is a task often thrust upon the Government. There are no doubt instances where it could be done. In connection with Crown lands, for instance, it would certainly pay the Government to forego everything in the nature of rent and taxes if such concessions would make cultivation possible and profitable. But we cannot agree with Mr Jesscp that the present cost of working land could be materially reduced by bringing the whole of the idle lands in New Zealand into cultivation. He must surely see bow economically unsound is such a proposition. It would indeed add a heavy and useless burden to the' whole of the community without in any way profiting primary production. , r