LAND AGGREGATION.

Auckland Star, Volume XLIV, Issue 180, 30 July 1913, Page 8

LAND AGGREGATION.

OFFICIAL REPORT ON ALLEGATIONS. "CRYING OVER SPILT MILK." By Telegraph.—Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON. Tuesday. Reports from the Lands Department on the subject of land aggregation were laid on the table of the House to-day by the Minister of Lands, wl-o moved "that the matter be referred to the Lands Com llllttee tor consideration. They relate to lands m the P.-ihiatua and Mangaweka districts.

Referring to the former. Mr E. F. Hawthorn, ol the Lands Department. Wellington, states that the term "aggregation" Ts both vague and elastic, but. allowing for this, it may fairly be- said that increase of the Burlings in Ohanga and Mount Cerberus districts is a real case of aggregation. Messrs \V. A. and R. R. Burling bare since 1SS:1 acquired 16.100 acres of freehold and 1.475 acres of leasehold. Out of this the area purchased direct from the i rov.T, is only SO.", acres, and no less Thar, l-2.r-.n-l aires were alienated from the ( r..w n for cash prior to iSRS. "It is. therefore, absurd. sav> Mr Hawthorn, "to rhaiTr »itVr the pr.sem Government or tH.. Department with milndminhtration. T.he c-.se nf the Wilsons iHanrapu. etc. I c.-innnt. i think, he piaecd in the same

category as that of the Burlings. There are eight separate owners, who hold altogether an .T-ca of fi.fi.SS acres, mr.de up oi 1.2. 2 acrs freehold and 2.35 C acres This gives an average of 532 acres for each holder. Whether or not th:-. should be regarded as a case of aggregation largely depends it seems to rne. on the relationship, ages. etc.. of the various persons, and en these points I have no information. The (iorringes ißautapu district I hold a total area of 3.5132 acres amongst four persons (average ns.-! acres,. M.2.-.2 acre- being freehold and 880 acre, leasehold. This cannot, 1 think. be considered a very glaring casi' of aggregation, although there i-.. of course, nothing to prevent it developing into such, unh-s more stringent legislation is passed. The cases of tbe St tickers l Hatttapni and the Masons lllantapui do not call for any special remark."' NOT RECENT. In regard to thp qnestion. "Is the aegregai ion the result of the passing of The Land Laws Amendment Act, 1912?" Mr Hawthorn says: "The answer to this is. certainly not. All tbe purchases of the F-urlinsrs were mad" between June. ISR3. and May. 1012. The Wilsons' acquisitions range from 1004 to 1011. and the Gorr-necs from 1007 to 1010. btuckeys' and Mason?" acquisitions were also all prior to the passing of the 1012 Act."' RANTiITIKEI AGGREGATION". Mr T. X. Broderiok I Commissioner of Crown Lands and Chief Purveyor) reported to the Cndcr Secretary of Lands regarding allegations of land aggregation in Rantritikei district: "If any undue, aggregation haa taken place it has been by the purchase nf freehold or converted occupation with right of purchase sections over which the Land Board had no control at the time the aggregation took place 1 say 'if" any undue aggregation has taken place, because a careful search of th • title- disclosed that there are many ind'vidual owners in each of the blocks that arc said to be aggregated." TOO I.ATK TO STOP IT. "This agitation against aggregation partakes of the nature of crying over spilt milk." continues Mr Broderick. "It i= a recrudescence of a similar one that led to the restrictions of part 13 of the Land Act being placed on all titles lo land sold after November, 1007; but. a? all the land near Mangaweka was alienated prior lo 1000. thoie i- uo power in law to cheek the aggregation. Any of the large areas held in the 0.R.P." tenure near Mangaweka can be made freehold and aggregated at any time the owners choose to sell." Mr Broderick declares that it is extremely difficult to conceive any law that would restrict all undue aggregation by individuals a:id families without it being too r"strict ive and irksome. He suggrsts. however, that tbe area of converted lease in perpetuity land that may he held by one person in the vicinity of towns should not exceed 300 acres without the Minister's consent, or, as an alternative, that this consent must be obtained unless the land is sold to a landless person.