LAND SETTLEMENT

Sun (Auckland), Volume 1, Issue 15, 8 April 1927, Page 3

LAND SETTLEMENT

TRADITIONS AND LAWS “STATE HAS NO LAND POLICY” A correspondent, “Agricola,’ in a letter much too long for the ordinary correspondence columns, discusses the land laws of the Dominion:— One of the factors which induced the pioneers who emigrated from England to found homes at the Antipodes was a desire to get away to a country where they could make a start free from traditional conditions, which hampered family welfare. They resolved to leave behind social and religious feuds, and build up a new community on liberal lines. As has been the case since feudal times, the ownership of land a subject which became the first Importance to the pioneers. Although their first efforts in land legislation did not prevent evils, such as the “gridiron,” from creeping in, in the course of time a definite policy placed a restriction on the area which any one person could acquire, and facilities were provided whereby any person might become a “selector.” No person could, however, be entitled to acquire land unless it was “exclusively for his own use or benefit.” But unfortunately, owing to the politicians’ acute love of “patronage.” the legislative power which Cabinet controls has caused the insidious insertion into the land laws authority for the Minister of Lands to over-ride the real inten-

tions of the promoters of our land laws. And so we find that where certain conditions have been embodied in titles, with the intention that the fulfilment of such conditions will prove the original bona-tides of the selector when lie declared that the land was “exclusively for his own use or benefit,” and secondly that the sale or disposal of the land should be subject to the fulfilment of the conditions of the title, the Minister of Lands has power to waive these conditions. The exercise of this power has led to aggregation. Blocks of land, cut up into suitable areas for small farms, on the advice of expert men, notwithstanding the expense involved in the survey, have been allowed to aggregate. This state of affairs would be quite bad enough in the case of virgin land acquired from the natives, but in the case of improved land, bought from private owners by the Crown, with the ostensible purpose °f making a property, which lias hitherto provided for one settler, offer opportunity for the creation of a dozen homes, is nothing short of a scandal When it is said that aggregation is Permitted when it has been proved that subdivision was a mistake, this opens Pp another phase of land settlement which is not to the credit of the Gov-, ornment. The most casual traveller overland will have noticed the miles of country without a hoof on it, and without any sign of a human. In a country like this, crying aloud for a rural population of intense farmers, this unused land is a menace to our Prosperity, and it is an open invitation to coloured races to come and take what we cannot use. So the subdivision of large estates, held practicallv unused, is a national duty. But we go the wrong way about it. If the owners ®f this class of country were compelled lo sell to the Crown at the value ''nieh has been placed on it for taxati°n purposes, we would immediately arrive; at knowledge of the true 'aiue, and, whether a sale were arranged or not, there would be the satisfaction of knowing that at any rate the owner was contributing his proper share to taxation. But we do approach the purchase in that ” a y, and so the Crown invariably P ay ® too much. The procedure now 1? that when a proposal is made for an purc^a se—it would be another na a longer story to relate how such Proposals first arise—a local board - a ® a look at the property, and puts jl lue on it. This valuation and to report are submitted nn / higher authority in Wellington. tv,,_ ,ihat authority decides whether ®V a * e Bhall be effected. Now', the blrJv "ho value and report on these WKa * even if they are competent

—which is not always the case—appear to approach the matter from an entiiely wrong standpoint. Summing up the position, ttiey may say: “Yes, £lO an acre is a fair price to ask for this place.” And if the proposal meets with the approval of the Wellington authority, a sale is concluded at £lO an acre. The property is then handed over to the Lands Department to subdivide and offer for selection. But before the Lands Depart ment can fix a sale it must fix a price. To do this, it takes the £lO an acre, adds thereto the cost of surveys and roads, the cost of the legal expenses involved in acquiring the block, the percentage to provide for administration and other departmental charges. The total of these charges added to the £lO an acre will bring the price to be charged up to £l2 at least, and at £l2 the subdivisions will most likely not pay anyone to work them. Then we have a fiasco like the recent Gisborne purchase. The question of the areas into which a large property is to be cut up is also one which never seems to receive practical consideration. If you take a large run, which has carried 50,000 sheep, and cut it up into 10 lots, it does not follow that each lot will carry 5000. nor, even if the lots are admitted to be of different capacity, will the aggregate be 50,000. To carry 50.000, the manager has been moving his stock from time to time; he has been closing up some portions of the country; but by practical knowledge he had carried 50,000. When the subdivisions are owned by different people, this moving of stock and resting of ”ntry cannot be effected, and the capacity drops. All the points referred to in connection with land settlement go to show that, with all the original efforts of our pioneers, we have, through the practice of political patronage, failed entirely to accomplish what our fathers set out to do. We have no land policy.