LAND SETTLEMENT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIX, Issue 21099, 5 February 1932, Page 8

LAND SETTLEMENT.

The assertion of the Minister of Lands that the principal activity in settlement during 1931 took place on undeveloped Crown land is not supported by his own figures, for the area purchased by the Crown was within a few hundred acres 'of the total of the settlement of undeveloped 1and—63,701 acres. The purchases may include some small properties bought under Part 11. of the Land Laws Amendment Act, 1028. Where they mean the disposal of a farmer's surplus area that has been beyond his financial capacity to use fully, true expansion of settlement may be claimed, but, unfortunately, most of the purchases were large private estates. They numbered 25, the total area was 63,261 acres, and the amount paid was £318,792, or an average of £5 10s an acre. When subdivision, building and other initial costs are added to this price, it seems doubtful if the outlook of the settlers is as encouraging as it, would have been had they taken up virgin Crown land for which development advances would have been available. The purchase of private estates, to use the Minister's own words, "is surrounded by many difficulties at the present time." His admission makes the year's purchasing programme all the more difficult to understand. It cannot be justified under present economic conditions. The Crown Estate must be used for future development. There is no reason why a substantial portion of the unemployment levy should not be expended in bringing it to the point of production. In his election speeches the Hon. J. G. Coates said the aim must be to put the unemployed relief workers "over the fence," where their labour would create a productive asset. Let the Government put this policy into operation. Even if some areas of Crown land demand expenditure on development that cannot be wholly loaded upon them when settled, there is still sound reason for so using unemployment funds. The country will receive a productive asset, which cannot often be claimed for relief activities. The cost of developing the Galatea Estate and certain Crown blocks in this province is not being loaded on to the land, yet it adds to the public debt. Unemployment funds expended on precisely the same purposes would fulfil their relief function, but would not swell the publicdebt. Apart from this aspect of land development there is urgent need for the Lands Department to abandon its traditional policy of buying private estates. In two years £697,580 has been so expended without taking count of the cost of subdivision, of access and of administration. The country cannot afford ihis form of settlement. The Lands Department must get back to the pioneer attitude of mind.