LAND GAMBLING AND POLITICS

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 161, 28 September 1927, Page 12

LAND GAMBLING AND POLITICS

GOVERNMENT’S CRITICS MINISTER MEETS ATTACK •THE 5 US'S Parliamentary Reporter) WELLINGTON, Tuesday. THE Minister of Lands, the Hon. * A. D. McLeod, was rot popular among members of the Opposition in the House of Representatives this evening when the Lands for Settlement Amendment Bill went through the second reading debate. The Government's administration of land po icy was criticised by Labour and National speakers, and the Minister himself was taken severely to task for failing to snow a more rosy position in our land settlement affairs. Mr. C-. W. Forbes, Leader of the National Party, suggested that the .Minister should relinquish office and give way to fresh blood, so that instead of living on mistakes of the past the Government could supply the necessary optimism fur the successful settlement of land. "The Minister has oeen asked to do more than is humanly possible, and maintai n his optimism," Mr. Forbes said. It seems that our land policy has coir e to an end. There is a feeling throughout the country that if we are to keep the unemployed off the streets of this country we will have to settle more land.” Mr. Allen Bell, Bay of Islands, sprang to the defence of the Minister and said that Mr. McLeod was doing the best in the circumstances. Mr. J. A. Lee: That is why we want someone else to do better. Mr. Bell said that post-war conditions caused a great deal of the trouble. Any man who had to tackle the problem of soldier settlement, deserved the assistance and sympathy of every member of the House. JUSTIFIED BY RESULTS Mr. I>. Jones, Ellesmere, said that as a man who had been or; the land all his life he would say that the Government's land policy was justified by results. They *new how difficult it was to go on the land with no prospect of earning a satisfactory living. That was the only thing that was stopping land settlement 1 :o-day Nothing more could be done than the Government was doing. Mr. 12. A. Ransom, Fahiatua: Reduce the cost of production. Mr. 11. T. Armstrong, Christchurch Fast, as id that there never was a time in the history of vNevv Zealand when the primary producer received a smaller return for his labours than at the present. It was not the cost of labour or material that had landed the farmer in the position he was in to-dav T but land gambling that had been so long countenanced by the Government. Why was there so much silence on Government benches on this subject ? Mr. McLeod: We want to get our legislation through. Mr. Armstrong: Have ali the loud speakers been sent to Rr.glan? Mr. J. A. Lee, Auckland Fast: They are weighed down by a sense of guilt. The Hon. O. J. Hawken, Minister of Agriculture, pointed out that the best land had been picked out, and while unoccupied lands were suitable for settlement they were only suitable under favourable conditions. He knew of* no land in New Zealand which could he settled by immigrants. Howmany men with mon?y were prepared to take up these lands? Hardlv a single person, and if a private' in-

dividual could not take up the lands with a hope of success it was idle to talk of the Government doing it. The Government should spend money on helping the men who were already on the land and struggling to pull through. “The curse of the ages in New Zealand ever since the of Wakefield has been the use of land merely for gambling.” said Mr. E. J. Howard, Christchurch South. Gambling in land would have to stop, and that was the policy of the Labour Party. TE WERA PURCHASE Mr. McLeod got tired of listening to criticism and offered to hand a complete file of the Te Wera purchase to a committee of the House or a committee of the Labour Party, and if this committee could bring down a report revealing the least suggestion of crookedness, or indicative of scandalous purchase, which had been suggested so often, he would resign his position willingly. Mr. J. A. Lee: I don’t think it is crookedness. It’s just incompetence. Air. McLeod said that it was for political purposes that Te Wera was decried from the first day i: was purchased. There were always people who would condemn the best purchase in the country, if it served political ends to do so. In the Gisborne district the vice-president of a chamber of commerce had condemned the purchase, but it transpired later that the same man had valued Te Wera for the owners at £75.000. He had thought £85,000 a proper value, but on account of the slump had reduced this by £IO.OOO. Large aveas of land were rushed on to the people of the country in 1921. Taken even at cost at. that time, the great bulk of this would not pay interest on the cost of improvements. 1 The Bill -was read a second time.