“REFORM” SPOLIATION

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVII, Issue 8357, 18 February 1913, Page 6

“REFORM” SPOLIATION

There was a ballot some days ago for a farm of 164 acres in the Tahoraite district, near Dannovirke, which was offered at the upset price of £8 per acre. This event was not of very much consequence in itself, though these aro the days when land ballots are few and far between, but the surrounding circumstances invested it with considerable political significance. In the first place, there were 310 applications for the one small farm. When it was disposed of, there were 309 disappointed individuals—3o9 persons eager to get possession of one small farm—and of these the great majority were so anxious that they had travelled nearly a hundred miles to the town of Napier to witness the disposal of that one small farm. One hundred and twenty of the applicants did not attend the ballot, having been rejected .by the Crown Lands Board, presumably because they were not persons of means and could not finance the purchase of a freehold. Certainly, they wore regarded as unsuitable applicants for a land ballet under the freehold system. The hundred and ninety who attended, of whom one was successful, wore all persons of means, every one of them being sufficiently well-to-do to go into the open market and buy a freehold for himself. They crowded each other in the sale room, flushed with excitement, all eager for the lucky number,' their pockets bulging with notes and gold, or their fingers nervously clutching marked cheques. Now, it is a fair tiling to suggest that it was not for this class of individuals that the land ballot was established. It is no part of the business of the State to find farms for people who can afford to, buy freeholds for themselves. In all probability, the 120 persons whoso applications wero rejected represented the class of people for whom the State formerly did and should continue to provide land. It was for such people, without money with which to buy freeholds. that the leasehold system was established, so that they might bo enabled to got on the land and create homes for themselves. It was certainly not for the wealthy speculator with his eye on the profit to be made from a State subsidy of land. However, this was a ballot under the much-vaunted freehold system, and the winner, who was able to pay cash for the freehold, got at £8 164 acres of land that was, at present market prices, fairly worth £l6 per acre. In other words, he got £2624 worth of land for £1312, or a cash gift, at the cost of the whole of the people, of £1312. This is how Mr Massey’s belauded freehold system is working put already. Now, seeing, that the whole of the accepted applicants for this farm were there prepared to pay cash, and that they were all in a position to buy freeholds in the open market, we say unreservedly that it was a political crime to sacrifice this land in such a way. It was not a ballot to find land for the landless settler without means. And, if the freehold was to be parted with amongst a competing crowd of well-to-do people, some of whom were undoubtedly speculators, the farm should have been put up to auction, the full market price obtained, and the interests of the State, which is composed of the whole of tho people, fully protected. Why should this land have been handed over at £1312 less than its value to a man who is free to go into the market to-morrow, and sell it for a considerable profit? Such a system, masquerading under the name of land settlement, is monstrous. It is easy to justify the leasing of land below its lull value, where the purpose is to assist agriculturists without means to obtain their own farms, and where they are bound to reside on and to cultivate them, but to raffle a freehold section at one-half its value, enabling the winner to pocket £1312 profit through no exertion of his own, is improper, scandalous, and a dishonest misappropriation of the public estate. There is another aspect of this occurrence that should suggest its own conclusions. The Hon. W.'P. Massey attempts to justify his proposal to import 25,000 immigrants annually by tho assertion that he intends to place them on the land. Where is the land? we would ask, in all seriousness. If there wero 310 applications for this ope small farm at Tahoraite, it is reasonable to assume that equal and unsatisfied land hunger exists in every other part of Now Zealand, unless the Hon. F. M. B. Fisher has already made good his undertaking to appease it with the vast and. illimitable swamps of Hokitika that he was intent upon reclaiming. When there is so little Crown land for tho people already here who are clamouring for it in numbers out of all proportion to the area available, how on earth is Mr Massey going to justify his statement that the people he intends to import aro to be placed on tho land? Perhaps, however, he intends to find billets for them as shearers and farm labourers, which is another story altogether.