THE LAND BILL.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 131, 12 September 1910, Page 5

THE LAND BILL.

GRADUATED TAji PAYMENT. Some of those who have been studying the Land Bill during the past few day* have discovered what they consider a serious oversight in the drafting. They, point out thai no provision is made for relieving owners of estates whose lands. | may be compulsorily leased from the payment of graduated tax. Many large owners, they say, pay 2% per cent, graduated land tax, and as they are to receive only 4'/L> per cent, as rental under the Bill, the net return to them would be an insignificant 2 per cent. Sir Joseph Ward, speaking to a Times' reporter, said that it was intended that where the disposition of any portion of estates over £40,000 in value is effected by way of lease, the land leased will not be subject to the graduated, tax, and that the position would be made perfectly clear before the Bill passed the House. "It would," added the Prime Minister, "be obviously unfair if, after an owner's land was taken and leased, with the possibility of the freehold -being acquired, he should be called upon to pay graduated land tax on the area that had been so taken from him for the purpose of reducing the larger estates and ensuring the closer settlement of the land. The object of the Bill is to ensure much closer settlement than has hitherto been possible under the existing law; but where the area of a man's holding is reduced by the operation of the measure it would be distinctly unfair to make him still responsible for payment of tax on land which, although he is nominally still the owner, he » not in a position to work. Provision was made for this in the rough draft of the Bill, and its absence in the final draft escaped notice; the omission will be rectified when the Bill is going through the House." Asked what effect such a provision would have on the revenue, Sir Joseph Ward said that any loss in that direction would be more than made np by the revenue to be derived directly from the increased settlement that would be brought about by the operation of the Bill. PRESS OPINIONS. (Wellington Dominion.) "Supposing the value of the whole property was £IOO,OOO and sales to sublessees amounting to £50,000 have taken place prior to the Government da» terminiiig to purchase. The Government in that case would, on purchasing, pay the owner only £60,000 for whatever portion of the property remaining unsold. The effect of this provision is decidely interesting. It may be illustrated as follows: Value Total .Acres, per acre. Value. & & Original estate jO,OOO i; 100,000 Amount sold to sub-lessees 12,500 4 50,000 The Government could then acquire the remaining 37,500 acres for £50,000 or £1 Os 8d per acre. Of course this is | an extreme case, and is merely intended to illustrate the fact that the owner is given no incentive "to sell his land to the individual sub-lessee; for whatever price he may be offered for individual sections he knows that it will not benefit him in the end; the Government | deducting the total received in this j way from the total valuation of the ( land. In other words, if an undervaluation of the property is anade in the first place the owner cannot remedy it for at least 33 years .even though the tenants who take up the land may be willing to pay to him the fulji value ot their holdings. The Government reaps I all the bcnelits that come from high prices thus obtained. Moreover, any increase in values which may take place during the ten years preceding the date at which the estate may be purchased by the Government all goes to the State. In fact, the landowners' interests do not count in the aiiatter at %11—it is a case of 'heads I win, tails you lose,' with the Government calling the game. At the end of the 33 years, if the land has' not been bought by the Government and the lease is not renewed, it will be thrown back on the owner's hands to wrestle with as best he team. lf,j" however, conditions are flourishing the land is certain to be taken by the Government by renewal of the lease or purchase." (Wellington Times.) "It may be said at once that the Land for Settlement Act cannot be relied upon any longer to meet the hunger for land. Already nearly six millions of money has been expended in this direction for the purchase of 1,238,090 acres, now occupied by about 1 four thousand settlers. Land values [have greatly increased, and it would i require probably ten millions to repeat | this record—and the population is increasing by 23,000 per annum and the Crown lands so rapidly passing that within live years the last acre will have gone into occupation. The burden of borrowing aud purchase has grown too great for easy contemplation, and as an alternative the Bill makes these far-reaching proposals for compulsory acquisition by lease. The justification rests in the public need. Those who wish for a precedent may I find one in British law, the Small Holdings and Allotment Act of 1908 providing that land may be taken in this way. Under the proposals of the Bill the Government may take any estate of the unimproved value of £40,000 or over, paying the owner a rental of 4% 1 per cent, on the capital value and sublease the property in suitable small areas on renewable lease of thirty-three years. Each settler will have the right to purchase the fee simple of his section from the landlord. .Strong inducements are embodied in the Bill to make the owner dispose of his land in this way to the sub-lessees, for which he can obtain from them' such increase in the unimproved value as there may be ten years, the Crown may at the expiry of this period purchase the whole propperty on a capitalised value of rental 5 per cent, on the original assessment Thus during the time the Cro\v;u is in the position of a conduit between owner and sub-lessee the interests of the owner i are entirely in the direction of realising upon his possessions. Practically the , Bill, if passed into .law, would tell the owners of the estates under notice that they can no longer continue to block tW march of settlement. It may be an unpleasant thing for them to bear, but the method of their removal will be almost painless, and their passing will open new fields to the settler m search of land."