THIS LAND BILL, AND HOW IT AFFECTS THE FARMERS.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXIX, Issue 8350, 5 February 1907, Page 3

THIS LAND BILL, AND HOW IT AFFECTS THE FARMERS.

No. 4 The next; portion of the Latui Bill deals with the limitation oi Private ''Estates in Land," but a clause in the Bill excludes from this limitation any Land within "cities and boroughs." Wc do nbt propose to deal with the ay pect of the question as to why rural lands and town lands should be separated; but it is passing strange that towns where cnonnoiiß sums are made by speculating in lands should be left, whilst the occupiers or users of rural lands should have this limit placed upon them. The first limitation is that anyone holding more than £50,000 "worth of unimproved land shall reduce hi 3 holding to that amount within ten years; and the second, that no man can purchase or lease more than £15,000 unimproved worth of land. The clause in relation to the latter limitation prohibiting the purchase of more than £15,000 worth of land reads as follows every case where rural lands held in fee simple or | by a lessee is disposed of by way I of sale, gift or lease, the instru-j ment of conveyance, gift or lease Bhall have subscribed thereto, or indorsed thereon, a statutory declaration by the purchaser, donee or lessee, that including the land comprised in the instrument he is not the owner or lessee, either by himself or with any other person or persons, of any rural lands anywhere in New Zealand, the unimproved value ascertained as aforesaid of the unincumbered fee-simple of the whole of which exceeds fifteen thousand pounds." Although the meaning of this is involved, we tstke it that whether an owner has a mortgage or not, he may not purchase any land if he holds £15,000 worth; or if less, what" he holds together with what he purchases must not in the aggregate be more than' ,£15,000 unimproved value, according to the value placed on it "by the Valuation Department; and not—as at first sight might be supposed—that after deducting the amount of the mortgage, he may hold x £15,000 in land. In either case the difference is one of degree. We do not propose to deal with the principle of limitation of land to be held by owner or owners, whether by lease or freehold. This proposal in connection with private lands has never been dis cussed in our Union. We will, therefore, confine ourselves to the examination of the limitation as proposed in the Bill. To force a man to sell any area over a fixed amount is a distinctly new departure, unsanctioned by the people. But common justice demands that, if this Procrustean method is adopted, the forced seller should "be able to place his land on the market under ordinary conditions. This the Bill does not al>low. He cannot sell the land for other than cash, because he could i ixiot foreclose if interest were not j ,paid, as even after the paring j had. been completed he • imight have more than the pre'scribed limit. It is true that the Lands Comanittee inserted a clause whereby [the mortgagee could purchase tiand at a forced sale, but it is by a proviso that if she land is not sold within two lyears from the date of registration of the transfer "the registration shall become void for all purposes, and shall be cancelled by the Registrar." (Who the land would belong to when the transfer was cancelled, whether the Crown or the original defaulter, no one 3xaa yet been able to say.) To gay nothing of the harshness of such a provision it would really be of no avail in most cases, for if the land were bought in by the mortgagee it would, no doubt, be at a time when prices were low and money scarce, so that he would not be able to recoup himself in the time. And rather than have the transfer cancelled, he would require to take whatever price were offered or he would lose the whole. This Bill', however, specially provides (Clause lib) that anyone on the £50,000 list cannot take advantage of the above provision, for he can neither "become the purchaser" .... "or lessee under a sale by direction of the Registrar of the Supreme Court"—the £5f,000 man, therefore, for his owr safety, must sell for cash. Buyers, from him, would thus require to have one-third of the value of the land at their command; before they could borrow the balance from some lender. As no one can hold ■—together with what he may purchase more than £15,000 worth of land, the number of buyers is limited, and, as will be seen when we come to discuss the question of the £15,000 limit, the price of money is raised, and the buyers are further limited, which all means the lowering of the value of land. The Union is not in favour of large estates,, nor, as far as we are aware, is any member of it. We have recognised that what New Zealand wants is that ploughmen, shepherds, sons of farmers and others should have favourable opportunity of settling on the land; for these men have had a training —are experts, not amateurs—and therefore likely to become of service to thevState and miccejaful for themselves, But tii* proposal would not give them ainy opportunity of taking land; tahey would not have the necessary capital If. therefore, we aw

THE UNION'S OBJECTIONS,

going to give - €hese owners who hold more than £50,000 worth of land the opportunity of selling their lands, the £15,000 limit should be excised from the Bill, or we will most certainly depreciate the value of the land they are forced to sell, and not do those whom we wish to benefit any good. THE £15,000 LIMIT. The Minister, in speaking on his Bill, said that this limit was necessary to stop the £50,000 'men cutting up their estates amongst their own families. When the list of holders of land over £50,000 unimproved value cornea to be revised, it will probably bo found there are not more than 20 (Crown lands are excluded, so that tenants of pastoral country are not on the list). We will now examine the result of the limit of £15,000 more closely. It must never be forgotten that, practically speaking, the land of any country is the ultimate security for all the debt (public and private) and the credit allowed to the inhabitants. To seriously interfere with that security means that the whole credit of the inhabitants has to be re-adjusted, and wo will proceed to show what those best qualified to judge think will be the effect of this £15,000 limit. It is obvious that we cannot give names, but the information is bona-fide and not suppositious. A bank inspector said, as far as his bank was concerned, that, when they had to realise an estate in the past they uurscd it in the interest of the owner, and only on rare occasions was there a total loss to him. But now, with such a provision as was proposed, limiting the holding of land to £15,000, by which they could not look iipon any security in the way of country lands as first class, they would require to realise as best they could in their own interests, and they could not protect the owner. The whole of their advances would require to be reconsidered. A commercial man, whose name is a household word in New Zealand, says:—-"The effect of the Government Land Bill must bring on a most grave upheaval, destroying confidence and causing serious loss. The evil effects of the Bill will soon make themselves felt, and the colony will be taught a lesson which will have a very steadying and which will bring people to their senses." Here is a business man, having no land himself, foreseeing the gravest consequences to the people, not from a landowner's point of view, but that the town must suffer. City people who do not come into contact with the farming community seem to forget that the prosperity of the country is almost entirely due to the export of the produce of the land, and that anything that unsettles the producer diminishes the output. The manager of one of the largest agencies in New Zealand, which deals with the produce of farmers, and therefore has frequently to find large amounts in the way of accommodation for them, on being asked if the passing of the Land Bill would affect the rate of interest to his clients, replied: "Most certainly, but how much I cannot say." "One per cent. ?"«- "More than that certainly, but how much more no one can say. If you prejudice our security we must charge a higher rate; the rate of interest i,i entirely dependent on the secxirity offered. The Land Bill will affect the security of some farmers most serioitsly, and we shall have to charge them a rate according to the risk, which will be much increased." Another said: "Besides our firm having many clients in the f arming community, lam a director of a company which lends money on land. We entirely ceased lending money when we saw the position we would be placed in if the Land Bill passed, for we could not hold land if we were forced to sell. Oxu* own business would be very seriously affected, and our clients would have in the end to bear the brunt of it and pay much higher rates and have their advances curtailed." (To be Continued).