The Dominion. FRIDAY, AUGUST 19, 1910. LAND PURCHASE SCANDALS.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 899, 19 August 1910, Page 4

The Dominion. FRIDAY, AUGUST 19, 1910. LAND PURCHASE SCANDALS.

The people of Victoria are having a lesson just now in the dangers that are incidental to the purchase of lands by the -State—and a lesson, also, in the need for caution in effecting a superiority over " 'graft'-ridden America;" The story cannot but be of interest to New Zealand, where there have been some questionable dealings under our various Land Acts'and-Na-tive Land Acts. During the debate on the Address-in-Eeply in the Victorian State Assembly last' month Me. Plain made some general allegations respecting the purchase of land at Cohuna by the Closer Settlement Board. He gave no names, but declared that certain lands had been purchased at their true value by a. vendor who immediately sold them to the Government at a greatly enhanced price. Nothing more was heard about the matter for two or three weeks, when the State Treasurer announced, that the Government had made inquiries into the Cohuna purchases, with some rather, sensational .results. A certain land agent and valuer was concerned in several of these transactions, and the Treasurer said that he "appeared to have been right ahead of the Board every time it bought" and that "he must have had an ex : traordinary unerring instinct where to buy land or he knew something." In one case a property of 1309 acres , was acquired by the Board for £8 10s. per acre which had been purchased by this land agent for £7 per acre, and- the land was _ conveyed to the Crown by* the original owner at this agent's direction.' In another case a block of 719 acres was conveyed in the same fashion to the Crown by the original owners, who had just sold 1 the land to the same agent at £7 17s. 3d. .per acre, the Board p'aying the agent £12 2s. 3d. per acre. As a result of Mr. Plain's brief general statement, the Government decided that s an inquiry should be held by a Judge of the Supreme Court. Last week, however, the Opposition hotly assailed the Government for not appointing a Parliamentary Commission to investigate what was on all hands recognised as a very serious matter, and for not proceeding at once with the inquiry. The Government replied that it was two years' since the transactions had taken and that a littlo further delay, until the purchasing officer returned from abroad, would do no harm. _ The full significance _of the affair was made vory clear in an article in the Age of Wednesday of last week. Defending the insistence ,of the Opposition upon immediate action, the Age declared . that the • plea for further delay, on the ground that some of the purchases were two years old, was "flagrantly absurd." "The older the purchases," it pointed out, "and the 'longer they have rested shrouded in obscurity the stronger is the reason for a prompt and vigorous eclaircissement." It is evident from the debate on Tuesday of last week, which prompted the Age to this comment, and in the course of which Mr. Plain produced soma further startling evidence of questionable dealing, that nobody seems to have imagined for a moment tliat 'the Government could do other than order as inquiry into the original statements by Mr. Plain, brief and general as they were. At the same time the Opposition, feared that although the Government might be unable to refrain from ordering an inquiry delay might enable the. cooking of evidence. "Won't the facts keep?" asked a Ministerialist when Me. Peendergast was speaking. Mr. Peendergast replied, that they certainly would "keep": they would "keep" so well that they would never be able to find them. This may or may not be true. The chief fact of to us here is that inquiry is unanimously' agreed to be necessary. "It is not so much,' 1 the Age points out, "that the charges savour of incompetence _ and corruption as that they strike at' the very foundations of a State enterprise in which the economic welfare of the people is essentially involved." .

That there are openings in New Zealand for similar questionable dealings is quite obvious. _ Quite apart from the fact that it is very important, 'in a country in which the State purchases large quanti: ties'of land, to keep the doors closed against corrupt practices, it is. desirable that the State shall not be led into making bad bargains. Our readers may remember the case of tho Nainai estate, which we ventilated in 1908, as an example of how the State can be burdened with useless land purchased at a very nigh figure. This land,' bought in 1903 for £10,000, was in 1905 bought for £21,000 by the Government to provide sites for workers' homes. It is a swampy_ and inhospitable area, utterly unsuited for workers''homes, as' Mr. Millar decided the moment he looked at it. The case was one that should have been made the subject of close investigation by Parliament, but nothing was done beyond occasional references to it, despite the manifest folly of the purchase. Possibly there are ' other cases of a similar character. The public interest requires, in New Zealand quite as much as in Victoria, that whenever doubt exists as to the correctness of any particular land transaction in. which the State is concerned every effort should be made by Parliament and the Government to have the matter thoroughly investigated by some person'or body above suspicion. The public knows that its interests arc not served by hushing matters up.