THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. FRIDAY, AUGUST 13, 1926. LAND SETTLEMENT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 19405, 13 August 1926, Page 10

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. FRIDAY, AUGUST 13, 1926. LAND SETTLEMENT.

The Crown has just completed the purchase of an estate in the Gisborne district for subdivision and closer settlement. The area is 10,000 acres, no small figure even in districts where large holdings are the rule. Details rob the transaction of anything impressive. With the exception of 3500 acres of bush the land is described as fully improved. It will divide into five sheep runs. This is the measure of closer settlement, the step toward satisfying the land hunger, achieved by the expenditure of £60,000. This is the evidence of forward policy and eager desire to develop the Dominion and make it more fruitful resident in the Lands Department. On the evidence of its own figures there are nearly 3,000,000 acres of unoccupied Crown land for future disposal, well on toward 6,000,000 acres of native land, much of which is patently not producing even a moiety of what might be won from it. In face of this the department spends £60,000 to put five sheep farmers where there used to be one, and evidently imagines it has done its whole duty. It is true responsibility for idle native land does not rest directly on the Lands Department, though if it showed more anxiety in placing settlers there might be more prospect of having something done about land which is neither used by the native owners nor available for anyone else. • But coming to the more direct responsibility of the department, what is found ? An everlasting spirit of procrastination, fertility in excuses, and little else. The Minister of Lands said early this year that he could find 5000 or 6000 New Zealanders to take up land if it were made available. What are he and his department doing to make it available for the benefit of all those who remain after five have been placed on the recent acquisition near Gisborne"? The annual report of the department may .well be searched for the answer to that question. The report definitely sketches a policy of do nothing, or as near to it as it is possible to go without putting the fact into those blunt words. It says : —"Pressure is often brought to bear for the opening up of large areas of undeveloped lands, but under present conditions there is n° doubt the proper course is to make haste slowly. . . . For some years to come it will probably be found that settlement will consist of the natural subdivision of occupied lands that should be rendered possible by improved methods and lower working (fosts, together with a slow and gradual occupation of inferior lands, rather than of a rapid and somewhat problematical settlement of blocks that are at present unoccupied through reasons of disabilities of access and quality." A cheerful prediction of inertia was never more clearly made. "Natural subdivision" presumably means subdivision and sale by the owners. This is indeed a much better system than the artificial enhancement of value following any appearance of the Crown in tire role of land buyers, seen at its maximum when the soldier settlement scheme was in. full swing. But, obviously, if that is to be the general rule for improved estates, and the department thinks it enough, it is preparing to do as little itself as is humanly possible. Also it is resigned to seeing the great native estate, demonstrably far more than its owners need or could possibly handle, .lying idle, while, on the open confession of the Minister, 5000 or 6000 New Zealanders, to say nothing of potential settlers from overseas, wait in vain for a chance to establish themselves and swell the total of primary production. In fact the department seems to think its only role is to find obstacles in the way of developing the Crown estate, and using them to excuse inaction. It pleads that it has much land which cannot be brought into profitable occupation without heavy capital expenditure. Would it be so heavy, relatively, as the investment of over £60,000 to settle five men, a net gain of four? It has not seriously tried to grapple with the problem of developing the less tractable classes of land; on present indications it will not as long as its excuses are accepted. Beyond the Lands Department, what is the Government doing about land settlement as one of the great policy questions of the day ? The department's report says that last year there were 1390 selections under all tenures, covering an area of 347,716 acres. In the same period there were 753 forfeitures and surrenders involving 307,464 acres. Whether any of these holdings were reselected or not, the net gain in occupied land is not very impressive. Is the Government satisfied with this 1 ? If so it is easily contented. Must it be reminded again that its last election manifesto included a statement that there would be a general survey of all unoccupied land in the Dominion, to ascertain what areas were capable of production, with a view to the settlement of such I;and? If anything has been done to redeem that promise, it has been very* unostentatious work. Unoccupied land is a wide term. Abandoned | farms, no matter what their tenure, come into the category. Unless they still belong to the Crown estate, the Lands Department may not be expected to concern itself with them : but the Government in its wider capacity, continue indefinitely to ignore them as one of the problems of the day. It has taken action in the case of land threatened with secondary growth and forest encroachment. The time is ripe for considering all instances of farms once productive but now left deso-

late. At best they represent dead capital; at worst, lost ■ endeavour and ruined hopes. Statesmanship points to this as a problem worth the attention of any man who is inspired, not daunted, by difficulties There may seem to be many departments and little cohesion in the. wide question of land settlement. Actually the simple basic principle is that any woi'k done to make idle land Crown estate, native land, deteriorated hill country or mortgage-ridden abandoned farms —produce is the work most conducive to thi3 good of the Dominion. It needs to be pursued with vigour and concentration, instead of being left to the mercy of various inert departments, Then the expenditure of £60,000 to replace one station-owner by five sheep-farmers would not be thought the summit of progress.