TOO SMALL FOR LEASE

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVII, Issue 8480, 15 July 1913, Page 6

TOO SMALL FOR LEASE

W© imagine that the self-styled “ Reform” Government will have some difficulty in satisfactorily explaining its interference with the Canterbury Land Board with reference to a certain transaction dealt with by Mr G. W. Forbes in his speech in the Address-in-Reply debate. The facts of the case provide yet another striking illustration of the hollowness of “Reform” in so far as its professions of clean and impartial administration is concerned, and also give rise to misgivings concerning the Hon. W. F. Massey’s ideas about land settlement. Some time ago the Canterbury Land Board decided to offer a section of eight acres for public competition under the renewable lease system. This decision was supported by the Commissioner of Crown Lands for the district, and was arrived at after the ranger had made a favourable report upon the proposition. But, for some reason, or other which Mr Massey, Minister of Lands, is apparently not disposed to state, the course proposed by the Board was objected to by the Department, which required the section to be sold at auction. Mr Forbes, M.P., wrote to the Prime Minister protesting, and received the extraordinary reply that' the section was “not large enough” to be let on renewable lease—notwithstanding that the Government was at that very time letting small sections of clay gum land under the same tenure! Now, we cannot for the life of us see what connection there is between area and tenure. We fail to see the smallest scrap of reason in saying that a section is too small tor lease and should, therefore, be sold to the highest bidder for cash. But the Government no doubt knows what was the object in view. However, the Land Board resented the Government or Department’s interference, and refused to have its work interfered with—until an occasion arrived that gave the Ministry of self-styled “Reform” and vaunted purity its opportunity. The terms of two members of the Board expired by effluxion of time. Those members were Mr Gibson and Mr Stevenson. The former, who is a Liberal, and who had moved to have this section offered for lease, was not re-appointed. The latter, being a provisional director of a newspaper which “Reform” is creating, was, of course, retained on the board, and a suitable successor to Mr Gibson was easily discovered amongst the faithful. Thenceforward the way was easy. The Land Board rescinded its previous resolution, passed on Mr Gibson’s motion, to offer the section on renewable lease, and agreed to the Government’s desire to sell it by auction. Now, Mr Forbes has asked that the transaction be withheld until the Lands Committee has had an opportunity ot going into the question, and has further requested that Mr Gibson’s evidence be taken by the committee. What does Mr Massey, the Minister of Lanas, and the user of the “square deal’ phrase, reply? Absolutely nothing. Mr Massey sat completely dumb in his place in the House when the member for Hurunui put this reasonable request; and we dare say the sale of tho section will be hurried on. There must be something behind all this, strange proceeding. What has become of the “ Reform” Government’s pre-election pledge to “ give all facilities possible to men of small capital to get on the land by means of tho leasehold, as a stepping-stone to tho freehold if they so desire”? "Why does the Prime Minister insist that this particular section should be sold, and not leased, particularly after the Land Board, as tho result of inquiries, had resolved in favour of lease, and seeing that there were persons, one of whom is an apiarist, anxious to lease it? The House of Representatives must demand answers to these questions. To say that a section is “not large enough” to lease is simply to make use of words that have no intelligent meaning. The land in question is of excellent quality. The “ Reform” Government is offering clayey gum lands in the inaccessible far north under the leasehold tenure in very 'small patches, and yet, for some reason or another which is endeavoured to be kept a profound Cabinet secret, this Cheviot section is ‘ ‘ not large enough ” to be held upon any but freehold tenure. In the name of all that is reasonable, Why? Will tho Prime Minister please explain? It is no use pretending to be tongue-tied.