ADDRESS-IN-REPLY.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLIX, Issue 3817, 12 July 1928, Page 1

ADDRESS-IN-REPLY.

LAND SETTLEMENT QUESTIONS. WELLINGTON, July 10. The Address-in-Rcply debate [was continued in the House of Representatives this afternoon and .evening, the speeches including that by Hon. 0. J. Hawken. Mr E. A. Ransom (Pahiatua) who was the first speaker in the afternoon, said that one of the principal causes of unemployment was (he failure of the Government to adopt a satisfactory land settlement policy. Relief works had helped to alleviate the position, hut the trouble with the work undertaken in this respect was that it was _ not sufficiently productive, such as improving land which at present was unproductive. He said that lie could not agree with the mover of the Acldress-in-Reply that the drift from country to town was not a bad sign. Ho contended that from the point of view of land settlement the policy of the Ballance-Seddon-McKenzie Administration was the host this country had over known. Ho referred to statements of the Reform Party that the Nationalist Party had “no leader and no policy” at the prCesnt lime. It was more a matter for concern what was the policy of the Reform administration. The Nationalist Party’s policy and leader would bo disclosed whon tbo time came. What had to bo examined at the present time was the failure of the Reform Party policy. ft had to be concluded that the Reform Party could see no daylight in the land settlement problem, as it had provided no solution. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Lands, the Hon. A. 1). McLeod, had conducted an investigation which was apparently resultless. Did they contemplate doing nothing movo? He said that if the intensive methods of Denmark were applied to this country there was no reason why New Zealand should not. immensely increase production. The Minister of Lands said that there was no demand for land at (lie present time, but Mr Ransom asserted that if land was shown (9 be available there would be plenty of applications for it. OFFER TO SELL PROPERTY. The problem that had to bo solved was why farming under the present administration was not sufficiently attractive and profitable. He. olfered the Minister of Lands his property at AkitTo for ten per cent, less than it cost him; ho gave him 14 days to accept that offer. If ofher landowners made similar offers there would soon bo plenty of land for settlement. What was required was land which was suitable for “one man farms,” farms which could be worked by a man and his family. But that was not the kind of land that had been purchased for settlement. Mr Ransom passed on to comment on the To Wera purchase. He was confident that it was a blunder and he had sufficient confidence in the Minister of Land’s judgment to know that had ho visited the land first he would not have bought it. He advocated close settlement on good land. The money spent on the Te Wera purchase would have bought largo areas of good land, and production would have been greatly increased. Such land could easily be found. , It was at present in existence and not, being developed as intensively as it should. He next turned to taxation. He claimed that taxation on' the masses of the people had consistently boon increasing, while taxation on those best a bio to pay had equally consistently decreased. The Government should derive more revenue by income tax on holders of large sheep runs. MOST IMPORTANT THING.

Hon. O. J. Hawken (Eginont), the Alinistcr of Agriculture) said that it was a most important thing to the country that the land settlement of the counry be on a Round basis, but there was a difference between bringing in more land and intensive cultivation of existing lands. High class lands could not be bought within recent years because prices were at the peak. That, however, might lie done again within the next few years, but he agreed that largo runs could not bo bought and cut up for settlement because they cost too much per settler. The bringing in of unoccupied lands was also costly, and he doubted if a demand for land was very great on the part of those with capital. The principal applicants for land were people without means, but who were expecting work or other assistance from the Government, but that system was productive of a great deal of trouble for the Government. A man going on the land should have at least £6OO. The Alinister of Lands was spending as much money as he could find to promote settlement, One of the greatest causes of failure of many settlements was that no roads were provided. Before the Reform , came into power .settlement had far outrun the means of access. The provision of roads, etc., was now a serious business, and in many cases the Government had to rcduco rents because of failure in the past to provide means of ingress and egress to whicli people had long boon entitled. In his opinion the land policy of New Zealand should go in the direction of intensive cultivation rather than extension of settlement. That had been the policy of the Government in connection with the fruit industry. The Government had assisted fruitgrowers in matters of information how to combat disease and increase their crops, and finally they had given them an export subsidy, which was costing the Government £30,000 per year since its inception. But; as a result some 6000 people woro getting a living from this growing industry. Intensive cultivation as practised in Denmark was an example we might follow and was, in his opinion, the ideal for which this Dominion should strive. The speaker proceeded to quote freely from statistics to demonstrate the increase in production due to more intensive cultivation.

Dairy produce production, for instance, had doubled in the last ten years, and the greatest production per cow had been during the last five years. This was the result of the Government’s policy to stimulate intensive cultivation, for it was evident that the fanner was not bringing in more land, but was getting more from the land he hold. If the Government had bought up more land for settlement they would have had to borrow more, or would have to neglect giving access. _ The Government had to make a choice in the course they would follow and they had decided that the botfer , course was to encourage intensive cultivation. That was why the Government had not promoted land settlement in the old sense, and he believed for many years to come farmers would be found to be using tlioir land more intensively than they had done in the past, REPLY TO OPPOSITION. Coming to the Opposition amendment, he said that it was evident fcliq Government was charged with not having dictated the policy of the banks. Mr Holland: The charge is that the hanks dictated (ho policy of the Government. Proceeding, the speaker asked if the Labour Party, bad been in power would they have dictated the policy of the banks? If so, it might have been successful for a time, but in the end it must have been disastrous for nothing could be more fatal than to allow the finance of the country to become mixed tip with the politics of the country. The policy of the Government in connection with the Post Office Savings Bank was defended. That policy was dictated by the circumstances of the case, but there was no dictation from the banks. If the present increase of income over expenditure continued ho ventured to prophesy that money would soon bo cheaper, unemployment, would lessen, and there would be bettor times generally. But that did not justify the policy of tho Opposition whicli seemed to find , fault with tho Government for not scattering cash in providing increased pensions and other ways

by which the Government might buy support. The Reform Party had never worked on those lines, and never would. MR SULLIVAN’S SPEECH.

Air D. G. Sullivan (Avon) said that the last speaker had protested that his Government would not buy support. His opinion was that his party was too far gone to buy support, oven if they wanted to do so. The Opposition had not charged the Government with interfering with the banks, but with allowing the banks to interfere with it. In support of this they had placed before the House reiterated demands of tho associated banks to have rates of interest charged by the State Advances Department raised. Those demands lmd been complied with and the banks proved themselves masters of the situation. The most serious and depressing speech in. the debate, he said, was (fiat of the Minister of Lands, who gave the House no hope of extended land settlement, The Minister of Agriculture had confiftriTtfl that speech and it was now quite evident that the Minister of Lands regarded his job as just one to keep on the land people who were already there. An extended land sett lenient dearly had-been abandoned as part of tho Government's policy. Where, lie asked, were the boys and girls, who were looking for openings for Hie future, to got them from if land settlement was to be abandoned ? The Minister: Where do you get that from ? Mr Sullivan: Tf Hie English language means anything af all that is (lie meaning of what we have heard from the Ministers of Lands and Agriculture. The matter would not have been so serious had the ' Ministers indicated some reasonable alternative. There was not oven a suggestion c.f developing our secondary industries for thathad been strenuously opposed by the Alin-- 1 ister of Finance last session. Mon so incompetent lo visualise the future in the matter of land settlement, or secondary industries, so bankrupt of ideas, so barren of constructive thought, should not be retained on the Ministerial benches, but. in the interests of the country there should be with as little delay as possible a Ministry provided from th cLalmur benches,” said Mr Sullivan.

Continuing his speech in the evening, M; Sullivan deprecated the contention of Mr F. Waite (Clutlia), the mover of the Ad-dress-in-Roply, that too much was being spent on secondary education, and condemned the lack of accommodation in consumptive sanatoria. ITe contended that there was a serious housing shortage in the principal towns and criticised the restriction of interest payments to Post Office depositors whose money had been the chief source of supply to the State Advance? Offico. MEMBER FOR GISBORNE. Mr W. D. Lysnar (Gisborne) defended the To Wera purchase which.ho said was good land and would turn out an excellent asset to the Dominion, The speaker pro- • ceoded to condemn costly railway deviations and construction which would not add a penny to revenue. As an Independent lie deprecated this surrender to the exigencies of party polities. Another thing he did not like about the present Government was their disposition to agree to a compromise. One of the causes of unemployment was the scarcity of money for landowners and this scarcity of money was due to the preference of lenders for local body debentures, many of whicli were taxed on a flat rate of 2s 6d. This was an arrangement by which the Government was losing thousands of pounds of revenue. This leakage should be stopped. It was absurd to argue that 2s 6d was the rate of taxation. Whon the money was lent the debentures .were taken up in the same wav as land and should be subject to any variation of taxation as the country might, require to divert money from the debentures. More money would then bo available for farmers who would be able to employ surplus labour. The speaker then passed on to discuss the meat trusts, which lie denounced. He declared that the present Minister of Agriculture was no more vigilant in tracking down the trusts than was the last one (Hon. W. Nosworthy). What the meat industry required was greater energy on the part of the Government or the Mont Board, without which farmers would get nowhere against the trusts. Unfortunately, the Meat Board was not functioning in the way it should. LARGE ESTATES IN SOUTH. Air J. Horn (Wakatipu) regretted that the Minister of Lands had made no reference to the land problems of the South Island. His problems in the North Island were no doubt difficult because he had no money with which to solve thorn. In tho North Island there was still much Crown land, even if some of it was deteriorated land, but in the South Island the problem was qui c different, for there was scarcely fifty acres of Crown lands remaining to be taken up. Otago, Southland, Canterbury and Marlborough were all in a similar position and this was particularly discreditable since there woro still a great number of large estates which could be profitably cut up. BRIGHT PROSPECTS. Air T. W. Rhodes (Thames) said that there was no reason to bo dispirited regarding the position of the Dominion. Production was increasing and prices wcre good so that prospects were bright tid the future was promising. The one thing necessary to successful farming in New Zealand was cheap fertilisers, and the Government should see that the farmers get them. The concluding speech of the evening was that of Mr M. J. Savage (Auckland West). The adjournment was then moved by Ah - A. Harris (Waitcmata) and (lie House rose at 12.22 a.m.