GALATEA ESTATE

Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 2, Issue 502, 8 April 1933, Page 4

GALATEA ESTATE

In the news columns- of to-day's issue, we puhlish a reply by the Minisfcer of Lands (Hon; E. A. Ransom) to an article which appeared in the "Morning Post" on March 9. The Minister has seen fit to characterise as, "absurd and erroneous" th'e statements made in that article, but while appreciating the fact that the Minister has :a.t last seen fit to disclose his policy and some matters of detail in regard to the estate, his reply is very far from answering the criticisms which' have heen raised by this paper. So far as the phrase "absurd and erroneous" is concerned, in view of the facts, it can only be regarded as a piece of intemperate language. The sarne may also be said of the unjustified charge of prejudice which the Minister levels against this paper in its criticism of his land development policy. We have always given Mr. Ransom credit for foresight and initiative in prosecuting land development, but we have, in common with the remainder of the press of New Zealand, reserved to ourselv.es the right of criticism. We are convinced that the Galatea scheme is a sound and valuahle contrihution towards the solution of the unemployment problem, ;and we have on several occasions, given Mr. Ransom. due credit for his work in this direction. The criticism of this paper has heen directed solely to the laggard manner in which the Lands Department has proceeded with' the work of settlement. In that criticism, despite Mr. Ransom's allegations of prejudiee, we have heen supported by district local bodies, the Auckland Chamber of Commerce, and the member for the Rotorua district. At the outset, Mr. Ransom takes exception to the following paragraph, which' appeared in the "Post's" article. "The position is, that the flats which had been well grassed are earrying practically no stock, in fact on the paddocks hordering the main road there were only half a dozen beasts to be seen, and perhaps 50 sheep." This paragraph, he states, is "practically unintelligible to himself and his officers." That of course, is a

matter entirely between Mr. Ransom and his officers, but we venture to : suggest that to the ordinary man in ; th'e street, its meaning is reasonably i plain; in fact, in elaborating his reply, j Mr. Ransom admits its truth. The ! paragraph clearly states that "on the | paddocks hordering; the.! main road" 1 only a few beasts were to he seen, and Mr. Ransom admits that at the time of the inspection this was possibly quite correct. So far as th'e regrassed area, is concerned, it is a fact, verified by inspection, that second growth and fern is making its appearance. The Minister has been so close mouthed regarding the details of the scheme that his statement regarding the number of stock on th'e estate is the first official pronouncement we have heen able to obtain on the suhject. This paper has always heen ready and anxions to give the very fullest information in regiard to Galatea, but it has. heen prevented from doing so owing to the nnnecessarily .secretive attitude adopted hy Mr. Ransom's Department. If Mr. Riansom had taken the press and th'e country more fully1 into his confidence in the matter, he would have done something to counteract the adverse criticism of which he now complains.

Mr. Ransom also claims that the article was unfair in drawing attention to the large number of pnsts and battens which have heen cut for the Galatea fencing and which are now lying on the ground awaiting use. We agree entirely with Mr. Ransom that it would he uneconomic to proceed with the subdivisional fencing while development is still proceeding, hut he has given no reason why, with the pastures at the state, to which he claims they have been brought, a proportion of- this fencing has) not been carried out. In addition, the Minister also completely sidesteps the vital issue of the department's failure to settle the large area of river flat land (.approximately 5000 acres) on which productive farming could have heen carried out from the date of th'e purchase of the estate. "I haval heen pressed to settle the block in piecemeal fashion," Mr. Ransom stated, "but I am determined to adhere to the original intention of ■settling the hlock when the department is in ;a. position to ensure th'at each settler will have a fair area of goodpasture." This can hardly be regarded as a satisfactory answer in view of the urgent necessity for settlihg ISfew Zealand's too wide opeh spaces. It is certainly no reason why the Minister should neglect the opportunity of almost immediately hringiirig 30 to 40 farms into production. It is difficul't to reconcile Mr-. Ransom's policy ih this matter with th'e policy which he is pursuing at Ngakuru. On this area, where it cahnot he argued that the pasture is not ready for settlement, the Lands Department has placed ohly its Government Demonstration Farm

and several groups of share fnilkers who have no tenure on their various farms. If this is not piecemeal development, it is difficult to find another name for it. Mr. Ransom is also unconvincing when dealing with the roading. He entirely evades the issue raised, which was the deterioration of the roads, by claiming "that only the iriternal roads are beingi administered hy the Lands Department." This, of course, means nothing. The criticism of this paper was not directed at any one department, but ia.t the general policy which is being pursued. Mr. Ransom does not answer the hssertion that the roads are heing allowed to deteriorate. On the contrary he tacitly admits it by stating that, "these (the internal roads) will he recOnditioned before the block is opened for selection."- In point of fact, we understand, so recently as this week, a gang of' men has heen put on to carry out this work. Dealing with the subject of expehditure, Mr. Ransom takes the writer -of the article to task for quotingi the approximate figure of £80,000 as the expenditure upon the estate. For this he has only himself to hlame, No definite figures have ever been given (although they have heen repeatedly asked for), and in- the a.bselice of theise figures, only an approxiniation is possiblq. It will he noted that although' the opportunity is there, Mr. Ransom still refrains from giving the actual figures. "As a matter of fact," he says, "it is estimated that the. estate will return at the very least three per cent. on the total capital expenditure up to March 31, 1933." In this, the word "estimate" has a peculiar significance. It will he rememhered that it was "estimated" that Arapuni would cost £1,500,000, hut that it has in fact cost iliPr e thaii twice that amouiit. W e would f eel more reassured if Mr. Ransom had shid what the estate is' atjtuaily returning, find not wh'at it is "estimated" it will returii. Tlie criticism of ^ this paper has heeh entirely directed to the Government's failure to settle that part of the estate which- is alfeady capahle of settlement, and at the delay which is defindtely jeopardisin^ th'e value of the work which has alrea.dy been carried out. There is nothing in Mr. Ransom's reply to show that this criticism is unjustified.