THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. THURSDAY, JANUARY 31, 1918. LAND SETTLEMENT POLICY.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LV, Issue 16762, 31 January 1918, Page 4

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. THURSDAY, JANUARY 31, 1918. LAND SETTLEMENT POLICY.

The farmers of Balclutha have joined in a criticism of the Government which the Herald has made and emphasised for months past. They say the Government has made a "bungle" of the Clifton estate and that it is following a mistaken course by buying land in the present indiscriminate fashion. This is putting the matter mildly. It would be no exaggeration to use the word which the Balclutha farmers applied to the Clifton transaction as descriptive of the whole policy which the Government is following in its futile efforts to settle soldiers upon the land. What reasons can be advanced for this system of purchase 1 ? A third of New Zealand is untenanted; twothirds of it unused. It requires no exceptional intelligence to see that every unused acre brought to use is a new source of wealth. Here is a line which any government could pursue with certainty of approval. Instead of this the anxiety appears to be to buy and sell, to settle a!nd resettle, the third of New Zealand already cultivated and to leave the balance for ever growing gnrse and scrub. How long will it take us under such a system to bring New Zealand to the limit of its productive capacity? What effect will years devoted to the cutting-up of improved estates, and millions spent in their purchase, have in reducing New Zealand's heavy war debt? These questions put the Government's action to a fair test. There are 20,000,000 acres of unoccupied land in New Zealand. Until this enormous area has been brought to some use the Government should be so sparing in the exercise of its powers of purchase that the owners of improved estates would know they had to find another market. ,

Not only is the purchase of improved estates wrong as a method, it is uneconomical, and if persisted in may become ruinous. In the ease of Teviot the price has not been announced. So far as the taxpayers are concerned it might have been a- military secret of use to the enemy. 'While negotiations are in progress there may be some reason for this concealment, but when they are completed the country is entitled to information which will enable it to judge whether the Government has made a good bargain or not. It may be safely concluded that the price is high. No such transaction has been made, none can be made, at a low figure. The same money spent in adding to the reclamations from the Hauraki and the Rangitaiki swamps would make available sufficient land for two or three times the number of soldiers who can be settled on Teviot. An equal expenditure on the East Coast Railway, the North Auckland Main Trunk, or the Stratford line would open a vastly greater area of magnificent land. A similar outlay in the purchase and roading of idle lands, whether in the north or south of New Zealand, would bring infinitely better returns. In all these cases the results of the expenditure would be to add to the area under cultivation, to increase exports, and to keep the price of land within moderate and safe limits None of these things can be said for Teviot or for the purchase of any improved estate. These transactions may be momentarily convenient, but so far as meeting the general demand for land is concerned they are negative, and their influence upon prices is a danger to the farmer, who will feel their effects whenever there is a sharp fall in the price of produce. In the meantime, if returned soldiers have to be provided for, it would be profitable to the Government and to the soldiers themselves if they were temporarily accommodated in settlements and paid weekly wages to bring large areas of waste land into use for their own subsequent occupation.

For the State, for the farmer, for the soldier, and for the taxpayer there is nothing to be said in favour of the purchase of improved lands as compared with the opening of virgin country. The Reynolds Estate was an instance at our own doors in which there was dissatisfaction all round. The Balclutha farmers have quoted another failure, and the number of such disappointments will . be multiplied until the Government faces a radical alteration in its land settlement policy and devotes its attention mainly, if not exclusively, to

the opening of new country. New Zealand taxpayers are paying heavily to maintain the Dominion's share in the war. Upon some incomes our rate is the highest in the world. In order that this burden may bo lightened every item of Government expenditure should be considered with care and directed into profitable channels. If our Crown Lands cannot be reached in time to meet a pressing demand, Maori lands can be bought with more advantageous results than can be secured from the purchase of every high-priced estate that comes into the market. Whenever the Government moves in the direction of land settlement it should lay its plans with the double object of bringing a good interest return and developing the resources of New Zealand. The line of action now being pursued merits the severest condemnation, because it gives no promise of fulfilling either purpose.