Poverty Bay Herald. PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING GISBORNE, MONDAY, DEC. 29, 1930. LAND SETTLEMENT

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LV, Issue 17452, 29 December 1930, Page 6

Poverty Bay Herald. PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING GISBORNE, MONDAY, DEC. 29, 1930. LAND SETTLEMENT

Students of conditions in the Dominion will find it difficult to share the optimism and confidence displayed by the .Government in .the latest official statement concerning the results and possibilities of its schemes for land settlement and development. The report covers three distinct branches of activity, firstly the acquisition and subdivision of improved land; secondly, the development of unimproved areas, to some extent, at least, by the, employment of relief workers; and, thirdly, schemes for the development of native areas with the object of fostering farming among flic Maoris* Subdivisional work is merely a continuation of the policy which has been followed for many years, except that the present Government is launching out more ambitiously than has been the case since the somewhat disastrous endeavors to settle returned soldiers on the land, immediately after the wav. It is contended in the official review that file frails of" the Government's policy are already apparent, and figures are quoted in extonso to show flie number of areas dealt with, the aggregate acreage involved, and the number of settlers-for whom landhas been provided. Unfortunately the figures are somewhat difficult to follow, for while one paragraph states that rural holdings totalling .1477, with an acreage of 572,000, have been disposed of in the past two years, the next states that the number of holdings selected was 574, and gives the average cost per settlor as £1343. Clearly the latter figure is incorrect; for it represents little more than £2 per acre, without making an allowance for necessary buildings. The next si a lenient: is that the Government has purchased -IS estates with a total area of 87,000 acres at a cost of £737,000, the number of holdings made available being 228, of which 182 have been selected. On these figures the cost of tln* land to the Government, without allowance for subdi visional expenses, ami 1 he cost of essential improvements* is more than £.B an acre. “The real test of the settlement .policy,’' remarks the review, “will be found in the number of rural holdings .made available.” That statement may be true, but un fort limit ely it is not possible to liml from Iho figures supplied how many holdings have been solUcd. Almost simultaneously with this review, however, .there was issued the Government Statistician's annual report on agriculture, and some of the figures supplied therein are in striking contrast to the optimistic comment of the Government. It is shown, for instance, that for the year ended January 31 last the area of land in occupation in tho Dominion has decreased by no less than .153,478 acres, or nearly twice the area of tho 48 estates acquired for closer-settlement. During the year the number of holdings in the Dominion fell from 85,002 to 85,107, a decrease of 425, while l'oi tho two years tho decrease was 539.

To paraphrase the Government's own

statement, the real .test of land settlement is the number of persons settled

on the land, and the inescapable fact remains that either because of, or despite, the .Government’s policy there are 539 fewer settlers on the land than two years ago. It is still probable, ol course, that many, if not, all of the new settlers will make a success of their ventures, but it is only right that the position as it exists should be shown in its true perspective. The most doubtful aspect of the Government’s activities lies in its schemes for the development of formerly unoccupied land. In the first place it. must be assumed that the areas to be dealt with comprise land of inferior quality or lacking access; otherwise they would most certainly have been taken up previously. This is a preliminary handicap, but it is douhtiul whether it will prove such a costly one as the heavy loading of values caused by the' .State turning itself into a farmer and doing development work with costly and inexperienced labor. In the ease of the Ngakuru block, near Rotorua, the. development of which was recently . commenced, it is estimated I hat the cost of development will lie £7 Ids per acre, but it. is nut shown that this allows for any proper rotational cultivation or fertilisation before pasture is laid down, as it is stated that 450 acres has already been sown in grass. Nor can it- fully allow for subdividing and buildings, which will add at. least £lO an acre to the cost of the property before it is ready for settlement. There.are other inevitable changes, and when Ihe total is uddcd to the original value of the land it is more than probable that the cost will greatly exceed the actual productive value. In another case it is reported that relief workers are clearing a. scrub-infested block of land, and this fact alone cannot but help to unnecessarily increase the cost o'" development. 'The total cost to the country of these various dubious enterprises is not given, but figures quoted total nearly £1,000.000, and it is difficult to believe that the experiments warrant the outlay at a time when every effort should be made to curtail all national expenditure. A somewhat similar scheme, having the relief of unemployment as its object, was recently introduced in Great Britain, and the general attitude towards it was one of condemnation, firstly because of the unwarranted cost to the. taxpayer, and, secondly, because of the unsit liability of the work for those seeking employment. The comment of (he London Times on the question can be very appositely applied to the activities of the Government in this country. “To judge from the experiments and failures of the past,” remarks the Times, ‘“there is no ground for hoping that untrained workers and amateur boards of management will be able to make a living out of an in? dustry which to a large number of farmers with life-long experience is a losing concern. If only a fraction of the unknown quantity of money for which the bill will ask were to be spent in helping existing farmers to make ends meet, so as to enable them to take on again the skilled workers with whom they have been obliged to dispense, there might be some prospect of reducing unemployment.'' Thatsurely is precisely the same position as exists in New Zealand to-day. Wo would reiterate the previously expressmi opinion that the Government's first duty is to safeguard the position of those already on the land, ami by restoring the great primary industries to a state of prosperity give an incentive to land settlement without, the artificial stimulus of schemes of doubtful value.