The Dominion WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 25, 1911. COMPULSORY EXPROPRIATION.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1268, 25 October 1911, Page 4

The Dominion WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 25, 1911. COMPULSORY EXPROPRIATION.

The Land for Settlements Amendment Bill, which tne Lands Committee disposed of in a very short time, and reported to the House in less than 24 hours after its first appearance, is a very curious and striking measure. It is the Bill which was forecasted by the Prime Minister when he said that the Government intended to amend -the law relating to the taking of private estates for settlement purposes; and it is a really fraudulent measure from some important points of view. The Government has found from experience that what was predicted years ago has_ come to pass, namely, that the policy of expropriation would by its own operation tend to cause a check in the process of settlement, -tiie Government has found itself at l*tst unable, under its financial methods, to carry on a vigorous landsettlement policj;. This is the Government's own fault, since it has neither made any genuine attempt to' unlock the idle Native lands nor keep its finances easy and elastic. It lias almost had to call a halt in its landsettlement policy ; and as a result it has had to find excuses. Accordingly it has for some time attempted to blame the owners of private land for a state of affairs that is wholly due to the Government's own policy and administration. The Prime Minister promised, in vague terms but in terms that ho hoped his Radical supporters would believe were so inenacto the landowner as to mean business, that lie would devise a remedy. The remedy he offers is the present Bill, which it is safe to say will do nothing to promote a fair and genuine settlement policy. At present the Government may take •any estate of over 1000 acres of firstclass land or its equivalent; the new Bill provides that estates must be over 2000 acres in area (first-class land) before thc-y can be compulsorily acquired. This may be more just than the existing provision, but. it is manifestly absurd to claim that it makes for more vigorous settlement. Under the existing law it is provided that when an estate is compulsorily acquired the owner shall be paid, over and above the unimproved value of the land, compensation for being expropriated, to the amount of ten per cent for the first £50,000 of unimproved value and 5 per cent on the residue value, if any. The new Bill repeals this provision, and provides that in estimating the money to be paid "the Compensation Court shall not take into consideration the fact that the land is to be taken compulsorily, or make any addition to the value bj' reason of that fact, but shall determine the true and fair value of the land as at the ck'te of the gazetting of the requisition in the same manner as if no compulsory acquisition was contemplated.''' The Prime Mikisteu's postponement of this enormously important innovation to the end of the session is evidence that lie knows that if the Bill had come down a couple of months ago the importance of the principle involved would be quickly recognised and promote a vigorous controversy. We hope that members will even now spend a few minutes in considering what this new proposal amounts to. That it will promote closer settlement is absurd on the face of it. How can it promote closer settlement? The Peijie Minister will say that it will ease the financing of land settlement; but it is plain enough that the Government's financial plans are in this respect so deeply embarrassed that the new proposal will be of no real help to them at all. But, more important than the fact that the Bill is a shallow pretence, so far as the invigoration of the settlement policy is concerned, is the fact that the Government has definitely proposed to violate the principle that the disturbance of individual rights by the State is a thing that should be justified by a special compensation. This principle has its roots in that conception of private rights upon which all sane laws relating to property of all kinds are based. The respect hitherto paid to this principle has been the one thing about Iladical land legislation in Australasia that has to some extent reassured the foreign investor and the local public. The casting away of that principle is really a revolutionary step, and one that fear will ultimately have most injurious results to the credit and the stability of the country. It is the breaking down' of the last substantial barrier against the spirit of confiscation. In past years our "Liberal" friends relied upon the payment of special compensation for the act of expropriation itself apart from the value of the property taken, as proof that there was nothing of the spirit of confiscation in the compulsory purchase of private property by the State. What can they say now 1 What is the next step to be ?