MINISTER AND MEMBER

Northern Advocate, 11 June 1931, Page 4

MINISTER AND MEMBER

The Wellington “Evening Post,” a non-party journal, makes some interesting comments in an editorial dealing, with the Hon. E. A. Ransom’s opinions on land settlement as viewed by him in preMinisterial days and at the present time. It points out that Mr Ransom, speaking as Minister of Lands last week, confessed that as a private member of Parliament he had been impatient of the slow manner in which laud was settled, but since becoming Minister he had realised that all they desired to do could not be done in moment. “It is usually left to the Government’s opponents,” says the “Post,” “to discuss this difference between expectation and fulfilment. Mr Ransom displays unusual Ministerial candour in acknowledging that all his hopes have not been realised. He has admittedly been confronted with extraordinary difficulties. The Reform excuse for a do-nothing land policy was that it was impossible to settle men on the land at the values then ruling with any expectation of their succeeding. This pessimistic attitude was largely induced by the experience gained in clearing up the troubles and losses of the soldier settlement period. First Mr Forbes and then Mr Ransom succeeded to the portfolio, with new hopes and new promises, and without the background of despair which had been reflected in the Reform hopelessness. Both the United Ministers attacked the problem with energy, and after a few months’ experience Mr Ransom was protesting pointedly against delays.” In October last Mr Ransom said he was looking for results, and if they were not forthcoming—and promptly —he would take into serious consideration the necessity of changing the personnel of the board or of the officers of the department. Referring to this declaration, the “Post” says: “Prospects are not so good now as they were then. In October the full effect of the fall in produce prices had not been registered. Farmers were not protesting so loudly that their burdens had become unbearable, But if the outlook for the new settler is less attractive because of the lower return for his produce, there is, or should be, something to sot against this. The former difficulty in successful land settlement was due primarily to the high value placed by owners on unimproved or partly improved lands for settlement. On both these counts there should be a reduction. The Reform Minister, faced with high laud values, did nothing; the United Minister tried penal taxation; the depression has done more than both to force values down to a reasonable level. It should be possible now for lands to be acquired at a price which will give some hope to the settlers — if the selling owners do not attempt to compensate themselves from the taxpayers’ pocket for the losses they have incurred in buying too dearly. A business-like lands administration with the expert advice which the Government can obtain from its numerous boards should guard against that. Unemployed labour, used wisely, should also lower the cost of bringing unimproved land into production. The one essential is that the operations should be directed by a Minister who still believes in laud settlement, though his faith is leavened with experience of the difficulties to be overcome. The United Government has been accused of stealing Reform policy. We hope that it will not give justification for a charge of theft in respect of Reform land policy—a wild era of buying and then a hopeless declaration; ‘lt’s no use.’ Rather we hope that the parties will come to agreement on the conclusion that there is still land settlement work to be done —■ though not so much or so easily as any party in Opposition would assert ”