“A WASTE OF FERN”

Putaruru Press, Volume VII, Issue 298, 25 July 1929, Page 4

“A WASTE OF FERN”

THE PUMICE AREAS. Hon. G. W. Forbes’ Criticism. The Wellington Evening Post, in a leading article, criticises the Minister of Lands’ speech in the House last week. The Wellington evening journal wrote:—“ People who are sympathetic towards the development of pumice lands—and who have not a penny of pecuniary interest in such development—will, we think, be dissatisfied with the tone of the Hon. G. W. Forbes’ speech in the House of Representatives last night. It may be literally true that the tract of land to be opened up by the railway jis ‘ largely a waste of fern scrub and titree,’ but the public has been I encouraged to believe by State and I other experts, ever since the inquiry of 1911, that this waste can be eco- | nomically reclaimed, .Mr. Forbes is evidently not prepared to say ‘ No ’ to the experts, and as he betrays so little exact knowledge about the problem of the ultimate usefulness of pumice lands, the tone of his remarks as conveyed in the quoteu words does not seem to be either justifiable or helpful. If the country had a Minister of Lands who j would definitely pronounce the pumice belt as useless within this generation, and who would give reasons, it could respect him for the strength of his convictions. If, on the other hand, being lacking in the essential knowledge, he would do his best to collate it, or appoint a competent non-political committee to collect it, then the consideration of the subject might be effectively advanced. But his remarks on pumice point m neither direction, and rather tend to obscure the issue. In another part of his speech, dealing with undeveloped lands in other parts of the country, and with deteriorated lands, he is reported as admitting the need of fertiliser, and therefore of ‘ good metalled roads.’ The case for pumice development also turns largely on fertiliser. In this part of New Zealand the question of pumice development (and the needed transport) is viewed from no provincial angle whatever.’ The only consideration is the national importance of developing a waste asset, and it canhot be brushed aside in the light manner indicated in the speech of the Minister of Lands.”