The Press THURSDAY, JUNE 1, 1967. “Undue Aggregation”

Press, Volume CVII, Issue 31384, 1 June 1967, Page 12

The Press THURSDAY, JUNE 1, 1967. “Undue Aggregation”

When the Director-General of Agriculture (Mr Webb) told a gathering of farmers and businessmen this week of attempts—presumably successful attempts—to “ beat the land aggregation laws ” he gave some interesting figures. There were about 74,000 farms in New Zealand, he said; and he had “reason to "believe” there were more than 1700 trusts, more than 1000 companies, and about 3500 estates. Mr Webb did not suggest, of course, that all these trusts, companies and estates were formed for the express purpose of defeating the aggregation laws; for many farm properties a trust, company or estate has many advantages over less sophisticated forms of ownership. But if, as Mr Webb asserted, many farmers are “ spending big money to beat the land aggregation "laws”, there is little doubt that their purpose would be assisted by corporate forms of ownership.

“ Undue aggregation of farm land ” is a nebulous phrase, the interpretation of which must vary from one region to another, from one type of farming to another, even from one family to another. The Land Settlement Promotion Act, 1952, lists several matters which the Land Valuation Court must take into account in considering whether any application to the court will cause an undue aggregation. The first of these is “whether the farm land already “ owned, leased, held, or occupied... by the purchaser " or lessee ... is sufficient to support the purchaser “ or lessee and his wife and such of his children as are “ dependent on him in a reasonable manner and in “ a reasonable standard of comfort ”, Apart from the difficulties of defining this passage and other equally vague sections of the Act, the legislation contains many legal loopholes. Laws which are flouted or easily evaded are bad laws, and tend to bring all law into contempt If a law is so full of loopholes that it fails of its purpose it should be repealed. The Land Settlement Promotion Act seems to be a case in point It has failed to prevent extensive aggregation of land—whether “undue” is a matter of opinion—and any attempt to tighten the provisions relating to trusts, companies, and estates would bear harshly on many completely innocent of any intent to defeat the purposes of the Act. The Act is bad law and bad economics. Its aim is “to provide for the closer settlement of farm “ land ...” Closer settlement does not necessarily mean more intensive or more efficient development, which is the compelling need today. From the national viewpoint it is less important to settle more people on the land than to run more livestock or grow more crops.