The Dominion. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 12, 1911. DOES IT MEAN SPOLIATION?

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1257, 12 October 1911, Page 4

The Dominion. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 12, 1911. DOES IT MEAN SPOLIATION?

A very remarkable statement was made in Parliament by tho Prime Minister on Tuesday last in answer to a question from a merhber of his party. Mii. Dillon, member for Hawke's Bay, had asked "whether the Government would consider the advisableness of acquiring an estate in Hawke's Bay which Me. M'Lean is subdividing." Whereupon Sir Joseph Ward bluntly announced that where land was obtainablo at a fair prico the Government would acquire it, but he wanted to take the opportunity to state that he intended to ask . tho House this session to amend tho law so as to enable the Government to acquire these estates without having tho country swindled out of enormous sums of money. The Prime Minister said a good deal more in a similar strain regarding what he evidently considered the atrocious conduct of land-owners who endeavoured to obtain as high a price as possible for their lands, and threatened to amend the law to compel owners to sell at a fair price. The large land-owner in New Zealand is not a person who receives very much sympathy nowadays whatever service he may have rendered the country in converting _ waste lands into profitable use or in reclaiming a_ wilderness of swamp and fern into rich pastures. The money he has spent, the hardships he and his family have endured, and the risks they have taken, count as nothing against the popular demand for closer settlement; and the sentimental ties which years of struggle have created to bind the owner to his land have to give way _ to the necessities of changcd conditions. But admitting this we have yet to learn that public policy demands the spoliation of tho large land-owner or that public opinion will tolerate it. Sir Joseph Ward, of course, states that the Government is prepared to pay a fair price for the land, which is perhaps very generous on the Government's part, but unfortunately the whole point at issue is the question of what constitutes a fair price. If tho Government is prepared to pay a fair price what is to prevent it taking all the land that it requires under the Land for Settlements Act? There is absolutely no obstacle in the way. The Act makes provision for the purchase of estates where the owner and the Government voluntarily arrive at an agreement as to the price; and there is all the machinery to enable the Government if it chooses to acquire the land compulsorily. It will be noted that Sir Joseph Ward complains bitterly that the land-owners ask too high a price for their land. This surely is childish when it is borne in mind that where there is disagreement as to price special provision is made for a fairand reasonable adjustment. Sir Joseph Ward, when he reviews tho position more calmly, must see that it is very ridiculous to complain of a man securing as high a prico as possible for his land; and especially is this the case when the purchaser has the power of compelling a sale at a price to be ascertained on an equitable basis. The truth of the matter is of course that the reason for the Prime Minister's indiscreet outburst about "swindling" and "misrepresentation" is that on tho eve of the elections he fiuils himself very awkwardly situated in respect of his land settlement policy. He has neglected to exerciso tho powers given him by .Parliament to uromo.te..

land settlement and in order to cover up_ his neglect he hurls unpleasant epithets at, and seeks to lay the b!amo on the shoulders of, the larger land-owners. They are small in numbers and a negligible quantity as a voting force and so the Government rise up at election time and with characteristic valour single them out as a target for their abuse. But we doubt very much whether the public is at all likely to be led astray by so obvious a device to divert attention from the systematic failure of Ministers to push on land settlement and provide opportunities for the hundreds of disappointed would-be settlers who arc bundled •about from land ballot to land ballot in a hopeless search for land. Not only docs this apply to land for settlement lands, but to Native lands, and even to waste lands already in tho hands of the Crown. It is perhaps unnecessary to labour the point. The tactics adopted by Ministers to smother up unpleasant facts bearing on their administration have grown familiar to most people and only require to have attention drawn to them to be quickly grasped. But it is not out of place perhaps to republish at the present juncture an evidence of the attitude of the Government on this question of what constitutes a "fair price" when purchasing land. Here are three definite cases vouched for by a reliable correspondent: r No. I.—An ostato situate in Canterbury. An association formed under Lands for Settlement Finaaeo Act. All shares subscribed, several of tho vendor's immediate relations being members. Somo of the members offered to pay ons-third of their purchase money in cash. On second last day of a six months' option. Lands Purchase Board refused to sanction purchase. Next day estate sold in one block at samo price to a moaner of tho association. Vendor refused to complete sale. Legal proceedings now pending to compel completion. No. 2.—Southern estate refnsed by Government. Purchased by a syndicate, and reeold before possession taken at 15 per cent, profit. One block recently resold by a sub-purchase; at e further 30 per cent, increase on his purchaso price. No. 3.—Largo estate Marlborough district, through centre of which Main Trunk line will shortly run. Refused by Government. Large area recently sold at an advance of 15 por cent on price offered to Government. Another recent case is the Hautotara Estate at Martinborough which the Government was frequently urged by settlers and the member for the district to purchase, but which they refused on account of the price asked. A private syndicate is now stated to have purchased the block at the price asked. These cases serve to show_ that the Government's idea of a fair price when it is purchasing does not coincidc with the public's; just as its valuations for purposes of probate duty show a surprising tendency to soar above what the public considers a fair price. Sir Joseph Ward will require to move warily —more warily than he apparently thinks necessary—in his electioneering efforts. Neither he nor his favourite colleague, the Attorney-Gen-eral, appear to have yet realised that they will be judged at the coming elections on their deeds, not on their professions; and if there is one mattar more than another which they cannot hope to cover up with abusive epithets or with high-sounding promises it. is the dismal story of cowardice and neglect which stands on record as the land policy 'of the Ward Administration during the past five years of office.