The Dominion. FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1912. THE NEW LAND BILL.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1556, 27 September 1912, Page 6

The Dominion. FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1912. THE NEW LAND BILL.

The Government's promised Land Bill was circulated last evening, and we assume that it is- a measure designed to meet what are considered to be the most urgent reforms, called for, rather than a Bill embodying the whole policy of the party on this important question. It is a comparatively short Bill of some 34 clauses, but it contains several very important proposals as well as a number of macninery and minor amendments of the existing law which are not likely to provoke very much controversy. The measure is subdivided into three parts; the first dealing with miscellaneous matters; the second providing for a, new method of voluntary subdivision of large estates under State supervision, and with State assistance; and the third giving the right to lessees of Land for Settlement lands to acquire the fee sirhple of their holdings. Before proceeding to discuss the various proposals outlined in the Bill, we must express our disappointment at the fact that the Government has followed the bad practice of its predecessors of unduly loading tho Bill with what may be termed "legislation by reference" clauses. For instance, Clause 11 sets out that "the provisions of Part XIII of the principal Act shall not apply to (1) any interest acquired under Sections eleven, one hundred and forty, or one hundred and fortytwo of the principal Act," which necessarily means a large amount of hunting through the original Act to see what it all means; whereas it could bo stated in the Bill itself and save all that trouble. It may not always be possible to do this without making a Bill unduly bulky, but it is certainly desirable to as far as possible make a measure containing such vital changes in the law selfcontaincd.' Turning to Part I of the Bill, the. first amendment of note is in Clause 7, which is designed to afford some solace to disappointed seekers after land who have been unsuccessful at the ballots. At the present time the Ministry of the day has power to set, aside.certain sections to be competed for only by landless applicants who Ijavo been twice unsuccessful at other laud ballots during the preceding two years. But this leaves the matter in tho hands of the Minister, whereas under the Bill just introduced it Ls made mandatory that such applicants as stated above "shall have preference over all other applicants at all subsequent ballots until they shall have been declared successful at a ballot." T!:is is a decided improvement on the existing law, and will assist to reuiedv to StSrile extent one of the clrawtinekf of Jhc ballot system, Clauso P ie. the,

next calling for attention, and . wlu.c it may provoke a good deal of discussion from the leaseholders, who may pretend to believe that they see ui it an attack on the National Endowments, it really embodies what is a sensible and business-like proposal. Briefly, it is proposed to give the yovornor authority, whenever he cfeems it expedient in the public inso to do, to exchange any area o National Endowment land for anv other land .of equal value. As it i's ' possible that in some eases the land exchanged.might not be of exactly equal value, it is provided that in such cases the balance of value may be made up in cash,, but not mo/e than 10 per cent, of the value of the endowment laud exchanged can be mefc i n this way. Where the Grown receives this proportion of the payment in cash, the money is to be carmarked by being paid into the National Endowment Account. There is nothing at all objectionable in this clause; on the contrary, if suitable exchanges _ are made, the country should ultimately benefit by obtaining a class of endowment which will be much more valuable than the existing country lands are ever likely to be. The only other amendment of the law in Part I of the Bill which appears to call for comment is in relation to small grazinpf runs and pastoral runs. A liumKer of changes are mado respecting .the terms of'■ lease of this class of holding, but we do not propose on the present oecaBion to touch on these in detail. .Part II of the Bill contains a new scheme for the subdivision of large estates by the owners, with roent assistance. The idea, of coursc, is to promote closer settlement by oncotiraging owners to cut up their estates and sell or lease them in small holdings. The Minister is given power to confer with the owner of an estate, and to enter into a voluntary agreement with him for the subdivision of tho property. The subdivision must be of a nature satisfactory to the Minister, who has tho right to pass the plans, and who must also be satisfied with the reserve pricc placed on tho sections. The land is then to be offered by public tender, cither for sale_ outright or on lease with a purchasing clause. The terms of payment, etc., are set out in the Bill, and aro of a very reasonable nature; and tho owner has no right to refuse a tender so long as it is equal to the reserve fixed on the holding. Safeguards against reaggregation are provided, and generally speaking the idea seems, so far as we have been able to examine it, to have been well thought out. The incentive offered to the owner of a property to take advantage of this provisiori of the new Bill is the' fact that he can call on the Minister to i pay the whole costs and charges of the survey of the land and tho roadmaking, etc. Such money, of course, is to be refunded within a period to , be agreed on, but the owner of the property has the advantage of being able to subdivide his estate without having to worry about raising tho cash necessary to do so; and he is getting the use of the money on the ' cheapest possible terms. Possibly the scheme will require to be made more attractive to the owners of large estates before it is likely to be taken advantage of to any great extent, but the idea is on the right lines. To many people the last part of the Bui will be regarded as the most important portion. This gives all Crown tenants holding lana under the Land for Settlements Act the right to the freehold; and it also provides that in the future disposal of land under this Act tho Minister may sell the fee simple. Tho terms under which existing lessees can convert to the freehold will no doubt prove a bitter bone of contention. The actual wording of this portion of the clause is as follows:— At a price equal to tho value of the land at the time of purchase, less the present valtlo of tho lesson's interest in th 6 unexpired term of his lease, and his interest in the value of any improvements effected by him, or to tho value of which lio is entitled. That is to say, the lessee of a section valued at £1000 to-day will have to pay in order to secure the freehold of his property £1000, less the,value of the unexpired portion of his lease, and less the value of any improvements he is entitled to claim under the Act. Assuming that his lease has still 40 years to run, its_ value above the rent he is paying might be, say, £8 a year, which, capitalised at 4 per cent., would be £200. This £200 would be deducted from the £1000, leaving £800. In turn, this £800 would be reduccd by whatever amount of improvements he had effected and was entitled to claim, possibly £50, thus reducing the pricc ho would actually require to pay to £750. .This, of course, is merely a suppositious case. Had the lessee been able to secure the freehold of the land when he first took it up. he might have got it for less than this sum. The idea underlying the proposal is that the lessee when purchasing should have returned to him some of the value his labours have assisted to create. Space will not permit a closer analysis of the matter on the present occasion. The Government does not propose to give the right to the freehold at either the present or the original value of the land; but introduces an altogether new method of arriving at a valuation, and one which appears to us to be likely to find much favour with Crown tenants.