LAND SETTLEMENT

Waikato Times, Volume 122, Issue 20491, 6 May 1938, Page 6

LAND SETTLEMENT

From time to time branches of the Farmers’ Union return to the question of land settlement, and the Wellington provincial conference is to discuss a remit urging that, where a farmer’s son or employee had given approved service and had proved his earnestness by saving a proportion of his wages, he should be afforded an opportunity of obtaining a holding under some scheme devised to assist such men. It is not long since a member of the Ministry stated that plans were being formulated to enable young New Zealanders to go on the land. It was held that the tendency of young men to leave the country and go to the cities and towns was not in the best interests of the Dominion and probably there would be no disagreement on that point. New Zealand, as Mr Nash once said, is peculiarly fitted for primary production and that must be the basis of the whole economic structure. The one essential for the State is increased production, and that necessitates land settlement in some form.

Recently the Minister of Lands stated emphatically that there ■would be no further extension of the freehold system, and although he felt impelled to admit that the farmers were “splendidly efficient” he did not apparently associate the standard of efficiency with the fact that in the majority of cases they owned their farms, or had prospects of owning them. It is for Mr Langstone to devise the plans that will make suitable areas available to young men, and on a tenure that will prove attractive. Land settlement has not been exactly prominent during the Labour regime, and if the Minister adopts the attitude of the committee that dealt with these matters, in a report submitted to the recent Labour conference, it may not be heard much of in the next few months. That committee urged land settlement, but the holdings were to be farmed under supervision until such time as the sums due to the State had been paid off. In view of the fact that the party, when in opposition, had fiercely assailed the plans that provided for a measure of supervision for five years, in cases where farmers were in great difficulties —they described it as a form of serfdom —this proposal to impose supervision until all debt to the State has been discharged is rather difficult to understand. It would mean supervision, not for five, but probably for fifty years, and even then without the possibility of the farmer obtaining the title to the land. However, it is the duty of the Minister of Lands to produce a practical plan within the limits which he has set, and probably also within those favoured by the party in conference. The coming session would seem to offer the last opportunity prior to the general election, if legislation is required, but the laws relating to land settlement are fairly wide and perhaps Mr Langstone already possesses all the powers necessary for the work lie has to do.