The Dominion. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 20, 1910. THE LAND BILL.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 952, 20 October 1910, Page 4

The Dominion. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 20, 1910. THE LAND BILL.

There are grounds for satisfaction at the form in which the Land Bill has been returned to the House of Representatives by the Lands Committee. It is true that most of the weaknesses which existed in the original measure are still retained, but two of the gravest injustices perpetrated under the new. compulsory leasing scheme have been removed. When the Bill was first introduced The Dominion directed attention to the confiscatory nature of certain of the clauses of the measure associated with the compulsory leasing of estates 'above the ..value of £40,000. It was pointed out, for instance, that the Government, proposed, to pay owners of land compulsorily leased a rental equal to 4i per cent on the value of their properties, but no provision was made for the remission of the graduated land , tax which would absorb a.-considerable portion of .this rental. In some cases the unfortunate owner, between ' the graduated ; tax and interest, on his m'ortgages, .•was liable to find himself in sore straits indeed,; if not hopelessly embarrassed under . the' Bill. . The Committee, apparently has realised this, and in' the Bill, as amended, an owner whose estate is compulsorily taken on lease is exempted froin the provisions of the graduated tax. ;- Tnen. again, as to the price at which an estate compulBorily leased, can' be purchased, an important amendment has been made. We pointed out in this" connection also, the gross injustice that would be done by fixing the purchase price at ■ the capitalisation ,■ of a 4J per cent rent on a 5 per dent basis" We quoted, by, way of illustration,; the case of an estate of the value of £50,000 which,-if the provisions of the Bill were given effect to, could be purchased by-tho State at £5000 below the State's own valuation, v The Bill as amended does away with this glaring: .-.The capitalising of the rent is to be on a 4 per cent basis. . Instead. of: the owner being paid only £45,000 for an estate valued at £50,000 for taxation purposes, ' he is to be compensated" for the loss of his land by a payment of £56,250. That is to say, the owner will .be paid 12i per cent above the taxable value of liis land by way of compensation for its, compulsory acquisition by the State. 'The customary outburst from the extreme Radical section of the House .was witnessed when .the report of ' the Committee came up for consideration yesterday, afternoon." There was the usual demand for;an increased grad-. uated tax which would force the Dwriers of tho larger estate's to . dispose of, their holdings. Mr. Btjxton, a member of the Government party, Bxposed the hollowness and injustice of this proposition very thoroughly in- connection with his own . experiences with Canterbury lands. He stated that owners of large' estates' in Canterbury . had communicated with him their desire to;sell. The land. was being offered at prices which had enabled private buyers to handle ifr with profit, but the Government thought' the price too high.-: If private purchasers are prepared to pay the price asked and find', that they can do so with profit to; themselves there can be little cause for complaint. . The , extreme Radical section, of the House, however, will be satisfied with■ nothing short. ,of penal taxation. Mr. Taylor went so. tar; as. to say yesterday that ho would tax every holder of'land above a certain ,_value at 5 per cent on the value of his .land. In other >words, that ho would confiscate his land. ' Wo do not think the country has yet been educated up to the stage of robbing a man of his land even under tho pretext of penal taxation. The discussion yesterday was interesting as foreshadowing a very stormy time for.the Land Bill when it reaches its Committee stages. :