A SCANDALOUS PROPOSAL

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 916, 8 September 1910, Page 6

A SCANDALOUS PROPOSAL

Probably the outstanding feature of the 1910 Land Bill of the Ward Government ;\is tho extraordinary proposal to further penalise the : larger landholders of the Dominion by means of an extension of the Land . for Settlements Act. In addition to the existing powers under that Act, which enable the Government to compulsorily acquire the freehold of private estates, it is proposed to authorise them to compulsorily take estates on lease. The owner of any estate of an unimproved value of not less than £40,000, if this Bill passes, may have his land taken from him by the Government, and be forced to accept in return' a rent to be decided by a Court of ' Arbitration', but which shall not in any case exceed a sum equivalent to 4* per cent ..on the capital value of the land. He is, in fact, not only forced to give up his - land and rearrange his whole plan of life, but the Uoyernment which seizes his holding refuses to pay him the cash value tor it, and sends him out into the world to embark on some fresh venture, handicapped for want of capital. It is'true that the Government will pay him,a rental for tho land which it has seized, but. the landholder is deprived of his capital for a period of at least ten years, and possibly for an indefinite period. The Land lor -Bettlenioota Act, whatever else might, beeaid against it, did extend this measure of justice to the owner of an estate compidsorily acquired by the Government—it pays him the value of. his property in cash or in debentures equivalent to cash. The original Act no doubt occasioned embarrassment, and probably caused loss to many settlers who had assisted to build up tho. fortunes "of the: country, as well as their own., But this new proposal is infinitely more, vicious and'unjust. If permitted to pass into law- it, will establish a principle which threatens the financial stability of every freeholder in the country. .-;. ' - ■ .--. -■ "■,■:_;■'. ■..' Some of tho sections of this portion of tho Land Bill are drafted in a slovenly fashion, but the intention is only too .plain,.' Briefly put,- the Government under this Bill will compel the owner' of <land' of the unimproved value of. £40,000 to" lease his property to the State, , reserving; .for himself, if desired, Land of the value of £0000. The term ;of the lease shall bo for.a period.of : 33 years, with ..right of renewal; but a clause is to be inserted, in the lease to provide- that at the , end of _ ten years the Government,. if it 'desires,; can purchase the ..'land, or the owner can, if he desires, call on the. Government to buy it.. In such case of purchase,the amount paid: is to be the capitalised value of the,.rent,, calculated ati 5. per ,cent per 'annum.' Should neither the Government nor the owner, be desirous, that' a . sale should take place, the lease will continue for, 33 years,' with the;: right' of renewal-mentioned. . W,hen : the Government takes.over, a lease-, it will subdivide the .land and sub-let, it to tenants, who-will pay the. State 5 per cent on the capital value of. the" property—the margin of i per.cent between the amount paid to the' Government: and the amount paid by the' Government,., t.o-' ; the': owner 'of the estate going towards the cost of administration. The-sub-lessees of the -land are given tbe.right to purchase from the owner of the property the . freehold' of their'holdings, but. they : cannot purchase them at a sum less than the. capitalised value of -the (rent they .■: pay. ' Should -.any sales of this nature :,take place the ■ Government will >. discontinue paying rent, to the original, owner in proportion to the value of ..the holdings sold. Should the ■ Government exercise its power .of acquiring, the freehold ofi* the property it will •pay only the difference between .'the original valuation of. the whole property and the amount, received; by the owner from sales which, may' have; taken place to, individual sublessees.- For instance, supposing the value, of the whole property ■'; was £100,000 and sales -to ". sub-lessees amounting to £50,0001. have taken place prior to' tho Government de- , termining to purchase'. ;The''Government, in that case, would, on,' purchasing, pay the owne'ivonly £50,000for.whatever portion of the property repiained unsold. The effect of;this provision .is decidedly '.interesting. . It may be illustrated as follows:'." ' ■■•■ . ' : ..- .-.--■ Value. Total ■' : .■■■'• -Acres, per acre, value. ' " :.-':. : . \. '-. ■ ,: : : ■:'.",£ ''IX'tf- ■ Original estate '.:. 50,000 2 .'-. . 100,000 Amount , sold to ■ ■ . .. .sub-lessees .„ 12,500 4 50,000 The Government could then acquire-, the remaining 37,500 acres for £50,000 or £l 6s. .=Bd. per acre. Of course this is an extreme case and is merely intended to illustrate the fact that : the owner is given'no in-\ centive to sell his land to the'- indir vidual sub-lessee; for - whatever ■price he may-be 'offered for individual sections be knows that it will not bonefit him in the:end'; the Government deducting the total received in this way : from the -total, valuation of the land. In other words, !if an undervaluation of the property is made in the. first place the ' ownei -cannot remedy it for at least 33 years even though the tenants who take.up the land may be willing to pay to him the full value of their holdings. The Government reap all: the benefits that come from, high prices thus obtained. Moreover, any increase in values which mayVtake place during the ten years preceding the date at which the estate may be purchased by the Government all goes to the State. In fact the landinterests do not count in the. matter''at all—it is a case of "heads I win, tails you loso" with the Government calling the game. At the end of the 33 years, if the land has not been bought by-the Government and the lease is not renewed, it will be thrown back 'on the owner's hands to. wrestle with'as best, he can. If, however, conditions are flourishing tho land is certain to be taken by the Government by renewal of the lease or purchase. . -...' It is not an easy matte'r to make the detailed working of the proposal clear, bub we do nob think anyone can fail to perceive tho vicious nature of the principle underlying it. With a lack of courage , which is characteristic of the present Administration the Government have shirked the broad , issues which confronted them and. have sought to cover'thoir weakness by an unjust attack on a smalL section of the community which they believe to: be too weak numerically to retaliate. They arc relying on being able to appeal to tho prejudices of a Socialistic section of the public against, the man of means to/support them in the perpetration not only of a grave injustico to ( certaiu.individuals, but

an injury to the whole country. The public, however, is not so ready to take Sir Joseph Ward and his col-' leagues on trust as it was three years ago; and it is not so-blind as tp.be unable to see that this measure of compulsion, if ever permitted, opens the door to an application of the principle in directions which willnot only affect a few large landholders, but a very large part and eventually the whole community. These evils are progressive. If the proposals under discussion arc permitted to become law, who is to say that, the £40,000 limit will not be reduced next year and still further again the year after? Who will say that the principle should not be extended with equal jiistice to the compulsory taking of land under the Public Works. Act, the unfortunate owner being compelled to accept an interest payment at a rate to be fixed by the Government in lieu of cash? And are there not other directions in which the Government might extend this principle of compulsory acquisition without a cash payment in return t Sir Joseph -Ward, in the House yesterday afternoon, professed to be deeply concerned regarding the question of repudiation by the Oamaru Harbour Board of certain of its obligations; and the effect of such repudiation on the credit of the Dominion. Does ho or fhc country think that the seizing -of private lands and. the forcing of the owners thereof to accept rent instead of the .capital value from the Government is likely to strengthen the credit of the Dominion amongst capitalists here or abroad! The Government might, just' as reasonably, go to ; business men in the towns and force them to lock up their money ; in Government .debentures at 4-1 per .cent when they desired to use the money .'in-their own businesses. In its desperate endeavour to escape from, the embarrassments.into which its own.lack of courage and want of principle on the land question have placed it, , the Wakd Government has perpetrated the .. biggest blunder of its brief, and unedifying existence. We doubt if there : is a single member of the House.who expects this slovenly, shuffling, and, in, the. respects noted above, grossly improper •. : Bill ■ to pass: into law in its present '?' form. We:doubt if there is a single;member who.would vote, to place it oh the Statute: Book.as,it..stands. -' ' ■. ';