LAND AGGREGATION.

Taranaki Daily News, 23 September 1919, Page 5

LAND AGGREGATION.

DISCUSSED BY FARMERS. CLOSER SETTLEMENT NECESSARY; Land aggregation was among tba topioe discussed at Tuesday's sitting Of At '• New Zealand Farmers' Union Conference. Mr. 0. L. Marshall (Wellington) moved: "That, in view of the serious y menace aggregation of land Is becomijtg to the welfare of the country, the .. Government be urged to take more effe> ' V tive measures to present same." . d Mr. Marshall said it was not considered >r a good thing in the Wellington Province ' for a man to hold too much land. , •< A voice: What le the limit? Mr. Marshall: The remit does not Mr. C. K. Wilson (Auckland), wl» ) seconded the remit, said the Qovanunmt , should see that land aggregation wju stopped. During the war aggregation had been going on, and it wu BO benest - ' to the country. Men had been buying ■ land and selling it to the Gtaftnunttt a few days after for soldier settlement purposes. The Farmers' Union should pro* \ test againßt any Government whisk ftSkl - to stop land aggregation. Was It rWkt I that large land-owners should be able ' to acquire more land and sell ft kH I at an enoraous increase. It WtM Soft enhanced prices for speculative pttrpOlftr 1 PLEA FOR POOR FARMER& ■ Mr. £. A. Campbell (Wanganui) «>• posed the remit. The proposition, ie 1 said, was meat indefinite. Some koldUtf* I were too sm|ll, and why should tie owners be prevented from iucretattgi them? There were poor fsi iim struggling along on poor land, and they should be allowed to purohale Jttd of better quality. Mr. H. D. Vavasour (Maribonwgk) be id the motion was the most "rietMu < propoHition ever placed before the Ooh> furitnce." Tiie effeot of preventing aggrt* ! gat ion would be to put a stop to *U enterprise.

Air. R. D. Duxfield (Aueklibd) Mid there were sufficient restrictions at prescut, and it would be dangerous to paw the remit in its present vague form. So'long as 'lands ware made productive and were not acquired for speculative purposes, he could not see that Buiih harm would be done.

Mr. W. B. Matheson (Wellington) iftid that land aggregation was charactWlitd as a metace. "It is talked about by ignorant tpeoplo as a serious tteuao#,* ho pointed out, "but the fact U tlttt the average holding in New Zttlafld is ' getting smaller every year, and bttr can you say aggregation is a id MM* i when that is going on 1 To-day Wl Ale taking very strenuous steps to pWfint men holding too large areas." Mr. J. H. Jull (Hawke'a Bay) rajtuffitftd that no one would object to a tMft Increasing his ten-acre holding to one Of 100 acres. It was the men owning, 10,000 acres that tfiqy desired to get at. WHERE ARE THE FACtS f Mr. D. Jones (North Canterbury) Mid a bald assertion wan being made thtt land aggregation was a menace. White werl the facts to support that etavrnient? The mover and seconder of the remit hud not brought the Year Book ' with tlielu to prove their statements. Nothing had been suggested as to how much land a man should own. He thought it was unwise to be continually declaring that tho land sold to, returned soldiers was too dear. Some of it was, certainly, but on the bulk of it tlie ' men would do well.

Mr. G. W. Leadley (Canterbury) thought that aggregation could be pre. vented by increased taxation on large holdings. Mr. E. Maxwell (Taranaki) said he waa absolutely satisfied that it was impossible to prove that land aggregation was becoming a menace to the Domi&ioft. There might be a few instances, but ill the majority of cases he waa sure that the evidence would allow that holding* were becoming smaller. Ail the circumstances had to be taken into consideration, for areas in some dlitritits tnlght not be a*s productive as areas of a Snfaller size in other districts. It wa» wholly impossible to lay down a hard and fast rule and say how much land any lnat) should own. He moved as an amendment: "This conference is satisfied that close settlement is for the true welfare of the country, nlid therefore is against undue aggregation." Mr. R. Dunn (Taranaki) seconded the amendment.

Mr. C. K. Wilson said the proof that land Aggregation was going on was contained in the Statement of the Miniate of Landß that he was going to introduce It drastic Bill to prevent the evil. "You are making a Tud ft# your own backs if you don't come out and affirm that you are against aggregation of land,'' continued Mr. Wilson. He gave an instance of a place where there were at one time thirteen holdings, a school, And a post oltiee, hut which to-day was vacant. That, he eayi, was another prow that aggregation was going on. Mr. Marshall said that what the country required was closer settlement. He asked lcavo to alter his motion to follows: "That this conference affirms the principle that unduly large areaa of land should not be acquired by any one individual." Conference refused leave to alter tho motion in this direction. Mr. T. Moss (Wellington) stated tha; it was undue aggregation ■of land that they desired to prevent. He supported the amendment. Returned soldiers were being made the victims of the operation* of land speculators, who cared not H scrap for the .country so long as they enriched themselves. "PANIC OP LAND GAMBLING." "There seems to bo a panic of land gambling going on in Taranaki," remarked Mr. George Sheat (Canterbury). "It is merely going on for the sake of speculation, and that is what I wish to see stopped." Land was changing hands at £ISO per acre. No country could stand that sort of tiling, and there would be a day of reckoning. "Land aggregation does not exist,'' added Mr. Shcat, "so why send' it out to the Laboritea that it does? All wo need to do is to affirm the principle that we are opposed to aggregation. There is land speculation going on. and that I wi*ii to see killed, but how von are going to stop it 1 can't say. You cannot stop that unless you abolish the riirht nf n newspaper mnn to buy another newspaper You would have to abilish the freedom of the subject, the initiative of the subject, and you would rcdive him tn an automaton. Well, we don't want to do that."

The amendment moved by Mr. Mux-.vcU was carried.