The Guardian And Evening Star, with which is incorporated the West Coast Times. MONDAY, MARCH 9th., 1925. LAND TENURE.

Hokitika Guardian, 9 March 1925, Page 2

The Guardian And Evening Star, with which is incorporated the West Coast Times. MONDAY, MARCH 9th., 1925. LAND TENURE.

It wctih! appear from the remarks of the Minister of Lands at Cheviot last week that the question of land tenure is to be brought up this session, when unfortunately an attack -is to be nude on the National Endowment lands, and possibly on the Cheviot Estate itself. The statement by the Minister was brought forward following n request from a deputation of leaseholders in the Cheviot Estate, who asked for facilities to secure the right to the freehold. Cheviot, of course, was the first attempt on the part of the Liberals to prove their policy of bursting up big estates, and offering them to people on liberal terms of settlement to increase the number of people on the land. Despite the fact that the policy was opposed by t)fo

Opposition of those days—the- Conservative party—the successors of whom are now in office —Cheviot- has been an outstanding success. That remark refers in general to the land policy of the Liberals which lifted New Zealand out of the slough of stagnation in which tho country was when the Liberals were palled to office and produced tho self-reliant policy of the days of Ballance-Soddon-McKenzic. Cheviot has well justified its existence, and

hitherto it has stood safe from harm, in regard to the tenure question. Now it, along with the endowment land: generally, stands in jeopardy of being alienated from the people. The National Endowment lands were another wise provi- inn in the Liberal policy set apart to provide additional revenue for pensions and hospitals. Endowments are intended to be permanent, sn that there will he an assured revenue under all circumstances. While in Canterbury last week, the ■Minister of Lauds was approached by local bodies to provide endowment lands to assist drainage and river protection hoards with cm assured revenue. But the Minister so far as the State is concerned, is prepared to part with endowment land, and the security for the future which such areas ] rovide in the way of a steady income. The policy of the Minister is to assert the freehold in preference to the leat-eliold, and in doing so lie would sacrifice the property of the State for the benefit of the individual. This is not sound government, oven though he has a majority ill the House to hack him up in the action. With the -freehold there is the fear always of large aggregation by the wealthy, and that means the exclusion of the less wealthy trom tin land. The freehold opens the way to capturing the pick of the country, and forcing up prites, making it more and more difficult for those «n small mean to get on the land. Act the Alinister of Lands will tell his audiences that the man on the land is the backbone of the country, hut in the next breath will create a tenure whereby all may not get on the land. The man on the land if he is to he the backbone of the country must work his land. It is well known that there are great tracts of country hut poorly utilised bemuse through the freehold the land has been acquired, ami the areas become- the habitat. chiefly of noxious weeds. The policy which would make the present Minister of Diruls famous, is not freehold and more freehold, but the creation of a truly rural population I. small holdings. It- is not the tenure which makes the farmer, hut the. work lie does on the land, and Cheviot has proved by its productivity under leasehold what <an he done with the land. If jt is converted into freehold, will it produce any mere? Seeing that -so much is being done on Cheviot at present, why disturb satisfactory conditions, give the land a false value by a nominal conversion, and then vitness most likely a decreased production. It seems a ease for leaving well alone. Cheviot was well bought and lias proved a success. Why give the State’s property away? In many instances the present Government bought land so disastrously, that under any tenure it cannot he made a success of. The Liberals were cu the right policy, and their sound judgment should not he open to sacrifice now by those who came after, and who seeking to imitate the policy, failed conspicuously. It i.s not fair to the country to juggle with land tenures where the land has boon set apart specially, and in respect to which the return to the country is proving satisfactory.