THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 15, 1926. THE LAND AND THE FUTURE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 19511, 15 December 1926, Page 12

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 15, 1926. THE LAND AND THE FUTURE.

After his recent excursions into debatable territory, the Minister of Lands is to be congratulated on the sound and common sense review of the rural outlook that he has ma dp at Gisborne. It lits the times very well. Mr. McLeod does not ignore the salient fact that many farmers are still unable to face the future without misgivings. It would be foolish to do this, because anybody with the most superficial knowledge of recent history knows that there are farmers who, mostly through having bought improved land on the crest of the boom, can scarcely be rescued from the pit into which they have fallen by anything short of a miracle. The phenomenon is not a new one, and it is not confined to the farming industry. It is typical of the aftermath of every boom s in every phase of human activity. The reason why it has persisted in agriculture rests partly on the fact that it was most affected by the inflated values ruling a few years ago, partly on the fact that farming is an industry with greater vitality than almost any other. It is to other industry what some especially hardy genus is to the animal or plant world, able to draw on its own reserves and survive where others perish. While, therefore, there is no virtue in ignoring the unfortunate element in rural industry, common sense revolts when it is claimed as typical of the whole. Mr. McLeod rightly suggests that at least 75 per cent, of the farmers, still in possession of the land they held when prosperity was high, should be in a position of stability. Conceding that there is no cause fos undiluted pessimism, considering the prices now ruling for produce, the Minister still makes his plea for great caution in pressing for closer settlement. On the side of this question on which he touched he is quite right- He argued stoutly against any extensive policy of State purchase for subdivision. From what he said at Gisborne, and has said previously, it is evident the Government is still being offered land in large areas. That is not surprising, but the fact that such offers are made provides no reason why they should be accepted. Any large scheme of purchase at the present time would be worse than folly, it would be a crime. Surely the example of soldier settlement by wholesale purchase, and the results it produced, have not been forgotten. It was disastrous when it was indulged in because it helped so largely in forcing prices to wholly false and illusory levels. It would be equally disastrous now when the slow process of readjustment is under way. If there is to be any subdivision and sale of large areas held privately, let the owners undertake it themselves. The days when they could expect the Government to pay their price in cash, do all the work and take all the risks should be gone. A few weeks ago Mr. McLeod hinted at the possibility of devising legislative machinery to aid the man holding more land than he could work to place the surplus on the market. If he can do this and so, without committing the State too deeply, help to bring more land into profitable occupation, he will have done his country a service. If he is tempted back to the old wild course of wholesale purchase, he will do it a disservice. The conclusive case that can be made against purchase for subdivision does not dispose of the need for more settlement, closer settlement, and more expedition in opening up land which does not need to be purchased because it already belongs to the Crown. It does not dismiss the question of dealing with native land lying idle and awaiting the stimulating touch which will make it productive. The conference on land settlement held in Auckland a few weeks ago showed that some men who have studied the situation hold strong views about native land. Compulsory acquisition even was advocated. This is a startling suggestion, having regard to the history of the native lands. That it should be soberly advanced shows how the spectacle <j>f such land lying idle, apparently doomed to remain so, produces drastic reactions in the minds of those who see it continually. The successful handling of this question, with that of the unalienated Crown estate, is one of the urgent problems of the day. The pity of it is that so little attention is given it. Admittedly there are difficulties. Some, like that of unstable values, to which Mr. McLeod referred, will pass away. Even inaccessibility and the intractability of soil found in much unoccupied Crown land are obstacles which may in time bo overcome. Sir Andrew Russell, presiding over the Auckland conference, suggested that the Dominion was fortunate in possessing even these second and third class lands, when compared with countries compelled to reclaim the sea floor in the search for more space. That is the right spirit in which to regard them. The time may not be appropriate for throwing them open in wholesale fashion, but there is every warranty for doing something to test their possibilities against the day when the cry for their utilisation will be compelling. The future of New Zealand lies with the land. The difficulties of the present are no valid excuse for failing to plan for the future. The need to be ready when the hour strikes should give to land settlement policy a dynamic force it lacks to-day,.