LIBERALS AND LAND

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2322, 2 December 1914, Page 3

LIBERALS AND LAND

(To the Editor.) Sir,—Having gained admission to your columns by, promising to make this letter brief, and. to sign it with my own name, "1 will not waste words or abuse your courtesy by criticising Reform methods of journalism. Last week you devoted two leadhi" articles to a bitter attack upon the Ward Government's laud policy and administration. They were admirably written, but woefully inaccurate". Your charges wero: (1) That the increase in the number of occupied holdings in the Dominion had decreased from an average of 1744 a year under the Ballance and Seddon Governments to an average of 787 under tho Ward Government. (2) That the aggregation of estates hod proceeded at a shocking rate under the Ward Government. The evidence you adduced in support of your charges was (1) a table appearing in the Year Book showing that the occupied holdings (of all sizes and all tenures) had increased from 43,777 to 69,942 between 1891. and 1906,' and from 69,942 to 73,876 between 1906 and 1910, and (2) two.other tables from the Year Book, one showing the amount of laud acquired under the Land for Settlement Act during the last two years of the Ward Government and during the first two years of the Massey Government, and the other showing the number of occupied holdings of over 1001 acres in extent in 1906 and in 1911.•

I If you had looked at tho table purporting to give the number of occupied i holdings more closely, you would have ! noticed that ;the holdings between one i and ten acres in extent were represented as having declined by 3852 between 1903 and 1911. The average incicase' in this class of section over a long series of years has been about 700 '. sections a year. If you had inquired from the Government Statistician he Would have told you that the apparent falling off was due to on incomplete collection of the returns. If you had inquired at the Land Office you would have been told that the average increase had been maintained. With this information in your possession a simple calculation would, have shown you that the average increase in the number of holdings between 1906 and 1911 was 1837 a year, not 787. „ I do not quite see what bearing 'the' acquisition of laud under the Land for Settlements Act "has on the aggregation of. estates, but I may point out that as the better class of Crown, land is taken up it will become more and more necessary, whatever Government is in office, to acquire land of this character .now in the hands of private individuals. This, of course, raises a question of taxation which you have not allowed me 6pace to discuss. As for your charge that the number of "aggregated" estates increased 'under the Ward Government, you seem again to have mis-read your evidence. If you will look at the figures more carefully you will see that, ihough tho number of occupiers of holdiugs over 1001 acres increased, the average sizfe of the holdings very materially decreased. By your argument, if a Crown leasehold of 40,000 acres wore cut up into 39 farms, aggregation in this instance would be 38 times worse than it was before.' This, speaking broadly, is what happened under the Ward Government. There were divisions of estates among families, divisions 'of large properties into fairly large grazing farms, and divisions of Crown pastoral leaseholds into smaller leaseholds. This is how tho increase in the number of large oc- I cupiers grow up, and you have mistaken it for an increase in aggregation, while really it is the very reverse. But the facts in regard to aggregation are not to be found in the table you have been quoting, which includes Crown leaseholds of every description as well as private leaseholds and freeholds. Tho tables you require to study are those dealing with the freeholds alone, and appearing -on pages 567 and 568 of the new Year Book. They, show that between 1889 and 1906 the area held in estates over 10,000 acres in extent decreased by 2,797,658 acres, and between 1906 and 1910 by 1,195,071 acres. This means that while previous Governments reduced the- aggregated area at tho rato of 164,568 acres a' year, the Ward Government reduced it at tho rate of 298.768 acres a year. The summing up of the whole matter is that the Ward Government holds the record by a large margin for both the increase in the numbers of occupied holdings, and the reduction in the area of aggregated land. lam sure- you will hasten to ■ withdraw your statements to the contrary, and T hope you will express Tegret for their publication. There are many other aspects of the laud question I should like to refer to, but I have . already trespassed upon your space too far. —I- am, 'etc., ; S. SAUNDERS. Wellington, November 30. [Our correspondent'. has worded his opening remarks a little unfortunately. He rather conveys the impression that he-was compelled unwillingly to sign his, name to his letter to secure publication, which of course was not the case, So far as his comments on our articles on aggregation are concerned they resemble very much tho recent' comments of the Opposition organ in Christchurch, which our correspondent for many years guided very ably in the interests of the Ward Party. His loyalty to his old friends, wo fear, has led him into tho indiscretion of going behind the scenes for his information, instead of taking the official figures published in the official records.' Somebody seems to have told him something that he considers proves official records .published under the authority of Sir Joseph Ward himself,_ and since reproduced in official publications for years past are incorrect. _ Strangely, enough these wretched official figuros_ are only incorrect in the "tables which show how the big- holdings have grown in numbers under Wardism; where they do not show. this they are correct. Our correspondent' must ■ excuse us if we find it a little .difficult to • accept this accommodating method of adjusting official records to suit the party needs of the moment. But even if wo accept our correspondent's delightful method of disposing of official figures we fear it leaves him as badly off as ever so far as the big holdings are concerned. It will be seen from his letter that his informant who questions tho accuracy of the : official figures which" have been published year in and .year out for -"'SO, long, only ventures to .challenge tho figures relating, to holdings of between one, and ten acres. There is a very, complete answer to that assertion, but passing it-by wo shall confine ourselves to Ino big holdings which our, correspondent has been good enough to direct our closer attention to. These are as follow: — Size of ' '• holdings ■ • (acres) • 1008-9. 1910-lt. Deo. Inc. 1,001 fx>s,ooo .... 4,090 4,780 - 690 5,001 to-10,000 ... ' 458 -- ; 526 - '6S 10,001 to 20,000 "'.'.V 235" "264'" - 29 20,001 to 50,000 ... 151 136 15 - Over 50,000 84 90 — 6 5,018 5,796 15 793 Net increase, 778. These figures we must .confess are official, taken from tho official records, but as they havo not been challenged by our, correspondent our readers may perhaps feel that they are beyond suspicion. They show that under the WaVd regime iho big holdings in Now Zealand increased in number in two years from 5018 to 5796, and that in only one class, that of from 20,000 to 50,000 acres in sizo, was there any falling off. All tho rest, even tho holdings' over 00,000 acres in size, increased in numbo'i'.l