NEWS AND VIEWS FROM FARMERS’ FEDERATION H.Q.

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 13, Issue 37, 5 January 1949, Page 5

NEWS AND VIEWS FROM FARMERS’ FEDERATION H.Q.

The items below are supplied by Federated Farmers of New > Zealand. The information given is official, but any views expressed are those of the federation and hot necessarily those of this newspaper. Land Values Continued representations are being made by Federated Farmers to the Government for amendments to existing land legislation providing for a more equitable deal for the landowner who is actively farming his property. The Federation, continues to urge the Government to accept the proposition that the. income earning capacity of a farm, or part of a farm, should be a major factor in .determining its value. Where the severance of a portion of the farm is intended, the Federation has continually argued that the reduction in the income earning capacity of the portion left to the owner should be taken into consideration. The Federation contended in its submissions that the Servicemen’s Settlement and Land Sales Act, in its day-to-day interpretation by the Land Sales Court, was probably not being administered just as the Government might have intended. It was, of course, possible that the Act as it stood could not, under present circumstances, be operated as the Government wished it to be._

“deficiencies” One anomaly with which Federated Farmers was most concerned, was the practice which had arisen of bringing into the calculation of value much factors so-called “deficiencies” in the form of buildings and crops. Those arbitrarily arranged and calculated ..“deficiencies” were deducted from the value' of the land under the formula provided by the Act, or at least operated by the administration 'of the Act. That, in the opinion of the Federation, was a vicious principle capable of being extended to deprive a farmer of most of' the value of hi'*'" _j-m. While such “deficiencies” wue taken into account against the farmer, the Land Sales Court had recently instructed ills Land Sales Committees that no increases in value should be made for the existence of ample or exira fodder crops. The Federation has argued that if such “deficiencies” are deducted then provision should be made in the Act for allowing an increased value to be granted where crops, buildings, etc. are in excess of normal requirements. It seems, to the Federation, quite inequitable to deduct a deficiency in one case and to ignore an adequate provision in another case. “From Him That Hath— * The powers of compulsory acquisition provided under the Act, brought about further anomalies. Few farmers, it is admitted, faced the danger of losing their whole property but many were threatened with losing part-.of their present holcfirigs. * The reversal of the Biblical injunction from “to him that hath shall be given” to the state of affairs under the Act providing that “from him that hath shall be taken away” might no doubt be a good demagogic catch-cry. There were' many cases in New Zealand where the taking, away process could well be applied just as it was in the days of Seddon’s Liberal Government. The ideal of preventing land aggregation was one with which Federated Farmers had a certain amount’ of sympathy. In the case, however, of the acquisition of comparatively small well farmed areas, it was unfair, illogical, and a penalty on good farming. Good Farmers Suffer Active farmers on reasonable holdings were, unfortunately, the ones who were suffering most under the compulsory powers of the Act. It was the policy of the Government to place returned men on developed properties and, in cases of stnall units so acquired, that meant in the main, t-aking so-called economic units from good who had so developed their properties that the State cast envious eyes on part of those owners’ broadacres. ,

The nett result was that the competent farmer, who had worked hard and developed his property, was placed in a worse position than th 4 man who had sat back and not exerted himself to the same extent. That was the penalty placed on good farming. If a farmer had increased the carrying capacity of his place to the stage when it was capable of being cut into two economic unitsf he immediately ran the risk of. having one unit taken from him. A neighbour, on a similar property was not so threatened because he had failed to increase the fertility