LAND SETTLEMENT

Hokitika Guardian, 19 February 1926, Page 4

LAND SETTLEMENT

(“ Lyttelton Times.”)

There is something refreshing in the outspoken manner of the Minister of Lands. -Mr M’Leod is the most interesting personality in the Cabinet, and if people do not understand his attitude on such important questions as the settlement of land the fault certanly does not lie with the .Minister. He has little of the politician in his composition, and obviously does not regard compromise as a political virtue. Others may seek to prove that “ the new Government wars not running counter to the principles of sound Liberalism,” and that the present Administration. ” shows no radical alteration of the previous regime,” but we ealimit imagine the Minister of Lands joining in the chorus. When asked recently to provide land for the .settlement of young men I ruin overseas, Mr M’Leod said that lie had mi intention of giving preference ..to immigran.ts, and proceeded to wipe off the slate the promises of land settlement made by his party leader on the eve of the election campaign. II land suitable were available for settlement, said the -Minister, ho could find 5000 or IiOOO New Zealanders to take it up. The suitability of the Crown land remained to lie proved, and it would cost so much to acquire land for settlement purposes that the Government would not he justified in purchasing it. If there arc so many New Zealanders ready to take up land, then, in the interests of the country, something should he done. Tito Reform Party promised to carry out a progressive policy of land settlement and to use the powers of legislation to effect subdivision. In the manifesto issued by Mr Coates last October the Prime Minister slated: "Tie return to stability in export values enable the Governii’ifiit to anticipate a demand which will i■■ Hfy continuous purchase ol suitable land for subdivision and settlement purposes.” That was before the election. In February the Minister of Lauds states that such a course would he too costly, ami he does not intend to adopt it.

Mr Coates, realising that there was a demand for land, in the same manifesto said: "On the one hand, induce-

ment- by way of assistance in funding, etc., will be offered to those desiring to subdivide private lands which are suitable for closer settlement; while on the other hand. should voluntary methods fail, the Government will not i’.esitate to make use of the compulsory clauses in the Act in order to secure such land for subdivision." That was the promise ; tile sequel is a plain statement hv the Minister of Lands that tlie Government, though aware that there are some thousands of New Zealanders ready to take up land, will not countenance any further renewed activity in this important matter; Mr M l.laid will have mine ol it. The .Minister of Lands keeps lo tin' old nut Its. The last annual report on land settlemonl contained the following:— Auckland: ‘‘During the year one new settlement was offered.” Wellington: “There were no new settlements purchased during the year.” Canterbury: "No estates were aeouired this

year.” Otago: " No fresh estates were acquired under the Lands for Settlement Act during the year.” And. if Mr .M’Leod has his wav, no estates will

be acquired this year. Recently Mr W. IVniher Reeves st vessel the need for closer set I lenient ami il must come. History will repeat itself. Land settlement will be a task for the Liberals.