The Dominion SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 1921. WEALTH GOING TO WASTE

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 310, 24 September 1921, Page 6

The Dominion SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 1921. WEALTH GOING TO WASTE

TheF introduction of the I* orests. Bill which was submitted to Parliament yesterday marks,' 'it may be hoped, a definite break with the bad past in which the forest wealth of the Dominion ..'was jmprovidcntly wasted. The Bill lays down a scheme of organisation- and working policy for the lately-created Forestry Department, and makes the financial and other provisions which arc- necessary in order that a real beginning may be mtide upon tho work of salvaging what is left of the Dominion’s forest assets. In the machinery clauses of which: it largely consists—clauses relating to departmental organisation, the institution of a methodical timber sales policy, and the' general management and administration of forests—the Bill appears to follow closely the lines recommended by the Director of Forestry (Captain Ellis) in his report to Parliament last year. Public interest will naturally centre in such provisions of wider scope as the Bill contains, particularly those relating to the reservation of forests and forest lands. It is here that the most vital issue is raised as , between sound and unsound forest policy. The extent, to which the timber resources of this country arc depleted is due much less to the toleration of improvident 1 milling methods than to the indiscriminate alienation, with agricultural land, of land that was fit for nothing else than growing timber. As the late. Sir David Hutchins wrote in his last published report: “Forest, alienation without forest demarcation ... is the root of all that New Zealand has lost over forestry in the past, and of all that it will have to'pay in' the future for the mistakes of tin past. - ’ The most essential step towards ending the wasteful destruction of forests is to ensure that no more bush land shall be alienated by the State until expert investigation has shown that it is suitable for agriculture, and will not yield better returns if it is reserved for the continuous production of timber. As far as can bo judged from a cursory scrutiny of its clauses, the Bill as it bears on this supremely important question leaves a good deal to be desired. It is provided, amongst other things, that any lands held by the Crown and not held in trust for any other purpose may .be set apart by Proclamation as permanent or provisional State forests, but there is no clearlyworded and specific provision that the remaining areas of bush country -vested in the Crown must be demarcated before they are thrown open for settlement. From this standpoint the Bill falls far short of giving effect to the recommendation of the Director of Forestry in his report last, year: "The principle that should bo emphasised here is that all forest lands under the control of the State should first pass through the hands of the Forest Service, so that a scientific examination may be >nndo by the competent soil specialists of this Department as to whether the land is agricultural or non-agricultural. . i . It cannot be urged too strongly that public . interest de-

mands better and stronger safeguards than the Bill provides against the indiscriminate alienation of further forest lands. Where such lands are alienated there is no gain to agriculture, for, with inconsiderable exceptions, the lands which expert dcmarcators would reservo for timber production are those which are incapable of yielding profitable .returns to agricultural industry. On the other hand, maintained in forest, these same lands are a wealth-producing capital asset which is increasing steadily in value every year. Adding to this that the remaining forests of the Dominion are barely sufficient to provide adequate supplies of timber in. the immediate future, the imperative necessity of amending the Forests Bill to provide that all bush lands must be demarcated before they are opened for settlement becomes apparent. AH the facts which justify and establish these general assertions are readily accessible to members of Parliament, and those who look into the facts can only conclude that the alternative to systematic demarcation is to continue the insane policy of converting valuable productive forests into idle wastes. While the details of the Bill are largely of a technical character, it contains other features of general interest than those which have been touched upon. It is proposed, for instance, that an advisory board should be constituted with the Director of Forestry as chairman, and including .in its membership the Secretary of Forestry, together with outside members representing those engaged in forest industry or otherwise interested in forestry. Such a board may serve a very useful purpose, not only in advising the Minister but in promoting the co-operation and good understanding between the Forest Service and outside interests which is essential to smooth working and efficiency. Another proposal holding exCellent possibilities is that forests on Native lands should be administered by the Forest Service, in trust for the Native owners'. Although, as we have shown, the Bill is open to amendment in at least one vital particular, its appearance 'is to be welcomed very heartily as paving tho way for the provident management henceforth-of a section'of tho public estate which has too long Jieen wasted and neglected. Members, we trust, will ‘give this measure their, earnest consideration.