LAND STILL WANTED

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 7870, 4 August 1911, Page 4

LAND STILL WANTED

Yesterday’s debate on tho land question in tho House of Representatives was instructive upon one point only, and that is that a not inconsiderable number of members aro dissatisfied with tho later results of tho Lands for Settlement Act. Tho report' of the discussion will also givo tho community an impression that some of these gentlemen aro beset with doubts whether llio more lavish expenditure they advocate would really bo a good Proposition and effectively meet tho requirements of tho times. Mr Forbes was undoubtedly right when ho told the House that ‘‘tho enthusiasm of the people could not bo sustained upon the very meagro results shown by this re port of the Land Purchase Board,” but lie was not very helpful when in touching tho crus of tho matter he said that “tho high cost of land was a difficulty that would have to bo got over.” “Getting over” this difficulty is ono of the problems tho friends of land purchase have to face—tho other one is that while tho State pays out huge sums of money to get laud for tho people, aggregation of estates already closely settled goes merrily on in tha same locality. Mr Laurenson appar ciitly sees this, and his perplexity is as great as his alarm. Manifestly tho State is merely emulating Mrs Partington, if when it acquires an estate at heavy" cost and settles half a dozes families on tho area so purchased pn vato enterprise at tho same moment acquires half a dozen farms and turns thqm into one. The land hunger in this country fs becoming more acute year by year despite land purchase, despite the enormous areas of Crown and native land brought into occupation, and ono result is that land purchase by tho State is being clearly shown to provide an inadequate remedy for the position. If all of tho estates under offer to the Crown had been purchased last year we would by tho time next Parliament assembled have the same complaint as we hear to-day. "Unless aggregation is stopped the risks to tho State through purchase and tho burdens upon tenants will he so great that only the most reckless of people could advocate greater expenditure. The fact that in some districts where large estates have been more closely settled the population has actually declined is alone a warning to prudent men. The demand from one end of the Dominion to the other is for greater access to land. Plainly, the duty of the Government is to meet this by checking practices which sterilise such usefulness as ono hitherto important method of procedure once possessed. Yesterday’s debate made this clear, and also showed how useless it is for the community to look to tho Opposition for aid. Mr Massey’s incoherent explanation of his attitude towards the national endowment leases which he would sell in order to buy v other land which he would not sell can only be regarded as an indication of bewilderment. It is, of course, hopeless to expect the leader of the Opposition to tell us how the land hunger would be appeased by selling to the present holders for a million leases worth four millions and with the proceeds buying “ town sections.” If he now told us as he formerly did that the money would bo used to purchase largo holdings for subdivision the proposal could be understood were it supplemented by an estimate of tho annual expenditure. We could then sec tho probable area to be divided each year. But at present prices we fear “the enthusiasm of the people” Mr Forbes so rightly wishes to sustain would soon evaporate. It would he a policy of forcing up values still higher, of dividing the plunder, the risk, and the burden in quite unequal proportions. ,