LAND FOR PURCHASE

Hokitika Guardian, 14 August 1929, Page 3

LAND FOR PURCHASE

WHY TAXES WERE RAISED. WELLINGTON, August 9. . No better reason for the Govenir ment action in taking steps to increase the taxation .on large Jandr ’owners' could have been given than that put forward in the House to. Representatives when the Hon. G. W. Forbes, Minister of Lands, stilted that the imposition of heavier taxation was by way of a gentle reminder that the Government intended I to proceed with its policy of closer settlement This statement the Minister backed with figures, .showiijg that the large landowners, from whopi teh 'Government had sought to purchase, had quoted excessively high prices, in the face of appeals to make settlement 'possible so that unemployment might be remedied.

In the course of his speech the Minister said it was estirijatecJ that the new taxes would affect 1752 landowners.

Mr Forbes asserted that he had always been a believer in the graduated land tax. If men were prepared to hold large areas, thus keeping numbers of people off the land, they should also be prepared to pay for that privilege. The principle of the larger the-holding the larger tfie tax lead been agreed to, not on)y by this Government, but by the previous Administration. It could be said that the* Reform party represented the large landowners, yet in last year’s Budget it was stated that the graduated land tax was high and that it was high for the express purpose of preventing aggregation and bringing about subdivisiQn. However, in the face of that, one heard at the present ti/ne dolefuj predictions ■ about the farmer hieing forced off his land because of an alteration in lgnd taxation.

“NOT PAYING FAIR SHARE,”

Why should the large landowners not pay their fair’ share? Anyone who investigated the position would find that for a number of years tlje large landowners had been getting off very lightly indeed. When ■ one discussed it with them privately, without raising the party issue, they readily admitted it. Mr Forbes said'he had no doubt they would now say: “We have had a good time for a great many years and it is only fair that as there is ri deficit we should help to make it up.” (Reform laughter and dissension.)

(The Minister added that so far he fi/ad not .copie acyoss, onp serious objection to what was proposed—

CLOSER SETTLEMENT IMPERATIVE-

“When we have so; many people in the towns and so few in the country there must be closer settement if we sre to progress,” continued Mr Jprbes. -“The land must be made available for larger numbers, but if wp find large areas locked up are we to say we can’t fly in the face of providence, and /therefore must not attempt to alter things? Was tile Government to say it could not disturb or inconvenience any of the gentlemen in possession of large areas That was exactly what the late Government had done, and therein was fpupd the cause of its failure.’ ' The Minister wen,t on to 4escri.be unsuccessful attempts made by hipi self to purchase areas for settlement. “I made it clear,” he said., “that we were 1 prepared t.o buy land in the-ord-inary amicable way, and that the Goveynrpent was prepared to purchase a£ a reasonable figure. I felt that T could appeal successfully to large landowners to help the Goyerpiment meet a national need, since the lack of lan.d settlement was the root cause of unemployment. I tried it, and here are the figures.

SOME TYPICAL OFFERS. ‘‘The properties offered under the terms of the Land for Settlement Act, 1925, totalled 569. The number declined' was 340. The number now under consideration and held for report is 215, and the number bought is 14.

“Well, that was a very small result for the large amount of yorjc entailed and the figures give some idea of what the Government is up against, commented M r Forbes. He then quoted from a statement showing twelve typical cases of properties offered to the Government. One property, in the Wellington .district, of

an area of .540 acres, carried a Government valuation of £29,406, and it was offered for purchase at £38,581. An Auckland property of 1500" acres, with a Government valuation of £19,000, was offered at £40,392. A Canterbury property with a Government valuation of £32,050, was offered at £41,500. Another Auckland propery, an area of 1000 acres, with a Government valuation of £IO,BOO, was .offered at £24.925. Yet another prop?rty, offered in tlie same district,, area 1400 acres, Government valuation £11,900. was offered at £21,703. Other examples were: Auckland, 7(X) acres, Government valuation £4965, offered at £23,380; area pf 1950 acres, Government valuation £13,050. offered at £33,430; Taranaki, 1050 acres, Government valuation £4645, offered at £9387; Wellington, 1350 acres, Government valuation £28,445, offered at £40,830; Westland, 85Q acres, Government ’valuation £5490, offered at £12,000.

GOADED INTO ACTION. Mr Forbes said tlie figures in respect of valuation were those on which those landowners paid their taxes. It would be seen that the response to his appeal, made'on patriotic grounds as not very encouraging. Such being the response, it was necessary for the Government to take action.

Mr D. Jones (M.id-Oanterbury): Ts that a fair sample of the offers. Mr Forbes: It is a ; sample of a dozen taken- out. - ! . ! v. The Minister added that a fairly large area of land unsuitable for settlement had been offered. Tlie Government could not be blamed for taking action to break up large estates; because even , the Reform party, in 1925, had gone to the country stating that this would be done. It had been stated during the election campaign that where land could not be Obtained for settlement by bargaining the Government would not scruple to put the compulsory clauses of the Act into operation. But what happened? Reform forgot its promises when it came back into office, and this promised action drifted out of the Reform party’s policy, and nothing was done. This Government simply could not s'it down and say “nothing can be done,” because that was one of the biggest reasons vhy the Reform Government was defeated.

The Minister said it was futile to charge that the increase of the graduated land tax would be ruinous, because anyone who found taxation pressing too heavily had only to dispose of 200 acres or so to get into a Lower scale. The fate of the previous Government for not taking the action now proposed, should be sufficient warning. Reform had gone to the country last year with “a; few tiddlywinking proposals” to help part-time farmers and . settle 10,000 acres. If there were 1,500,000 acres of pumice land in the Taupo area as stated, then at the rate proposed by Reform it would have taken 150 years to settle it. The people had asked for bread and the Reform Government had given them a stone.

. “A GENTLE REMINDER.” Defending the Government's action in increasing the scale, Air Forbes said it would hot press heavily on small farmers, since it was estimated that only 1752 landowners would be reached by the new prop sals. This new taxation would be accepted by small farmers as very necessary. When he had been, travelling about the country, said Mr Forbes, large areas had been brought under his notice as holdings that were keeping various districts back, but when his Departmental officers had got into touch with the owners it hpd never been possible to do any business. In those circumstances the landowners could not fairly be aggrieved when the Government took step to remedy the position. It might be said that '.the •Governjment had not increased land taxation enough. He knew that would be said later in the debate, but he did not believe that a crushing impst should be placed upon landowners who had not expected it. However, nothing could be said against a gentle little remindci to show landowners that the Govei nment was in earnest. Those affected would not be able to complain, because what was done was quite reasonable. A man with an income of £SOOO had told the Minister that he paid only £<loo land tax, and he himself did not see why he should escape so lightly. We are going to make that jnan contented,” concluded Mr Forbes with a smile. “We are going to, give him a chance to pay his fair share.”