THE LAND BILL

Evening Post, Volume LXXII, Issue 93, 17 October 1906, Page 10

THE LAND BILL

TO THE EDITOR. Sir —Surely we have amongst our Opposition one who is capable of criticising the weak defence of the Minister at the Hutt. His arguments may satisfy the faithful, dog-like labour unions, but surely not the farmer and the business man? After a, preliminary canter, threatening a Ministerial invasion of the whole colony (free education at the ratepayers' expense), the Minister reiterates that ■well-worn fiction about the dirficulty in ! finding land to satisfy the demands of the people. All these Socialists talk large about "the people." At the present time in tho colony it is not an exaggeration to state that 50 per cent, of the farm land is for sale, generally on such easy terms as will enable any one who is in a position to lease from the Government to negotiate for it. If tiers is a good point in the Bill it is the provision for compelling large I owners to cut up; but even this is of only temporary necessity, as large estates wmen earn be tarmad to wetter advantage in smaller areas, and produce more per acre when so farmed, will in the course 01 events be cnt up. A*o holder of 1000 acres who only makes 7s an acre and is 1 offered £9 an acre will lefuse it for long. Money is ■worth. 5 per cent, to any one, and if this rate is not realised in one investment, it is naturally invested in something else. There is no sentiment in the colony, as in the old Wor;d, about 'holding large family estates. Hero it is purely a matter of L.S.D., and the bogey of "aggregation of large estates" makes one. feef* very tired with its ceaseless reiteration. Ut course there are * few exceptions that can bo quoted, but get a return of hoiuinss over jooU.uGO twenty years ago and compare them with the present, taking off Government purchases (some of I which would naturally have been cut up . by their owners), and it will then be seen where tho so-called danger gomes in. The expensive and artificial liotliouselike legislation which w« are constantly being treated to, with tlie object of providing for a few exceptional cases, is unnecessary, and from' a business point of view might be compared with a bank which called its directors together at a cost of £1 Is apiece to consider the advisability of allowing a particular customer accommodation to the extent of £5. However, I suppose they feel it their duty to do something in order to justify their existence. Referring to the mortgagees, tho Minister says:—"They wanted to take care that a mortgagee did not become a land speculator." Another case of erecting an obstacle for the purpose of knocking it down. Who has ever heard of a mortgagee deliberately lending money with a view to obtaining the property? Ask any valuer in the colony what tho result would be if he hinted to tho mortgagee that there was a prospect of hia having to foreclose if he advanced the money. It is almost inconceivable that men in the position that Mr. M'ftab is can talk such nonsense. One would think, to peruse the statute book, that New Zealand was a convict settlement, and not "God's own country. Then the sprat thrown to catch the mackerel —namely, the permission to repay 90 per cent., all restrictions except one removed —who ia going to take advantage of that? Who wants to repay money on which 4£ per cent, is charged? All the L.I.P. tenants want to borrow, and cannot, because of the occupation clause, which is not removed. ■ . As an instance, I have (say) 200 acres of land^which I have spent the best part of my life improving —the rental, L.1.P., is (say) 4315 a year; the property would be worth freehold (say) £3000, or £150 a year rental. The capitalised value of the £15 rental is £300, therefore my interest is worth £2700. What loan can I get on that? About £150 from the Government on my improvements; nobody else will lend, except at an exorbitant rate, owing to the objectionable occupation clause. And our paternal Government considers tho freehold bias a purely sentimental one, which should be discouraged. Freeholders are too independent for the .present Government. The farmer freeholder is fast becoming the only individual who can safely speak his mind Mr. M'Nob finished with a sneer at the freeholders, 'saying some are for original value, others out-and-out. Very possibly ; but that is transparently a red-her-ring. The question is, "Shall the L.I.P. tenants be given the option of freehold on certain terms?" Not what shall those terms be. It is the Leader of the Opposition's duty to see that the question is put that way. Tho verdict tho colony has to give is— nationalised land, and then nationalised everything, at which point wo have socialism pure and simple —to which point we are rapidly drifting —or, a continuance of the policy which has made Britain the greatest colonising Power the world has ever seen —the policy of self-help.—l am, etc., H.G.B. Wellington, 15th October, 1906.