Leasehold v. Freehold

Dominion, Volume 31, Issue 190, 10 May 1938, Page 13

Leasehold v. Freehold

Sir,—The Minister of Lands in championing the abolition of the freehold is, apparently, strangely out of touch with reality. Having been all my life a close observer of farming practices over a wide area of the North Island, though owning no land, I can say without doubt the standard of farming on leasehold lands. i s almost without exception shamefully below that on freehold lands. It is simple to introduce protective clauses with provision for supervision, etc., but in practice these are not really effective. Even on freeholds many take too much out of the land without returning a due proportion for maintenance and reconditioning, Hn some cases it is a matter of ways and means, in others, it is a repetition of the methods which have practically ruined so much land in both North and South America. Leasehold can be defended in theory perhaps, but in practice—no. There is no excuse for a' Minister of Lands to be ignorant of the psychology underlying, nor of the results in practice. I venture to say that not one of his own Lands Department field inspectors or valuers would fail to report unfavourably on the standard of farming on leasehold as against freehold. An element of greed does come into the matter, but he who robs his own farm feels the consequences on a freehold, but too often, in effect, he gets awav with so much of the capital when handing back a deteriorated leasehold, or when arranging rental on a renewal. It is yet to be shown how gred can be banished from our natures by Act of Parliament. Nationally, it is important, as any lowering of the standard of farming is, of course, a lowering of New Zealand's production. —I am. etc., ELEMENTARY. Palmerston North, May 5.