LAND AGGREGATION

Evening Post, Volume CIV, Issue 83, 5 October 1922, Page 5

LAND AGGREGATION

ERRONEOUS IMPRESSION

REPLY TO CRITICISM

STATEMENT BY MINISTER.

A lengthy statement on land statistics in reply to suggestions that aggregation is proceeding was made in the House of Representatives yesterday by the Minister of Lands.

"I desire to make a statement to the Housb in regard to land settlement and aggregation," stated Mr. Guthrie. "The Government's policy in regard to these important matters has been criticised in the House from time to time, and by a comparison of figures culled from diferent sources an endeavour has been made to prove that aggregation is rampant throughout the Dominion. As an erroneous impression ' may have been created in the minds of those who are not in a position to look closely into the matter, I desire to place on record some pertinent facts bearing on the subject. "While it has been admitted that the record of settlement on Crown lands since. 1916 has been very satisfactory, it has been pointed out that although 8924 Crown selections were made during the' period 1916-1921, the increase in the number of holding amounted to only 4530, thus showing a loss as the result of aggregation of 4394 holdings. Apparently agricultural and pastoral statistics compiled by the Government Statistician have been compared and used in conjunction with the figures appearing in the annual returns of the Lands Department. The agrcialtural and pastoral statistics give a very fair indication of how the occupied land of the Dominion is used, but it has never been claimed for them that they provide an accurate record of the number of holdings disposed of by the Crown to private persons and held by them. For instance, a leaseholder may hold three adjoining Crown leases taken up at different times. In the returns of the Lands Department these will be shown as three separate selections, while the collector of statistics will return them as one holding. The' agricultural and pastoral statistics do not include land within borough boundaries, while the Lands Department's figures embrace all classes of land disposed of. Furthermore, the figures published- in the Lands report give the total number of selections year by year, and must not be taken as' leaning new ' selections of virgin land. They comprise all disposals of Crown lands, and include many re-selections. Many areas of Crown lands, such as pastoral runs, education, reserves, and miscellaneous leases, are let for specific [periods, and at the expiration of the lease the land reverts to the Crown. When the Land Board re-lets such holdings to new tenants the transaction will appear in the tables of the Lands Department as 'selections.' This does not apply to renewals of leases where the tenant remains in occupation. Again, when freehold land is purchased by the Crown for settlement purposes, the subdivisions taken up from the Crown are shown in the table of selections, and, of course, no deduction is made on account of the freeholder from whom the land is bought. UNFAIR METHOD. "For example, under section 3 oi the Discharged Soldiers Settlement Amendment Act, 1917, the Crown purchased 74,000 acres from 116 owners and allotted the area to 324 soldiers. In the figures of the Lands Department these transactions would appear as 324 selections, whereas in the A. and P. statistics only 208 new holdings are accounted for. It will be sen, therefore, that in using the table of 'selections' prepared by the Lands Department and the table of 'holdings' prepared by the Government Statistician to prove aggregation, a most unfair method has been adopted, and an absolutely false conclusion has been arrived at. It has been shown that for the period under review, the Lands Department takes credit for 8924 selections, but as Ihave already pointed out, these include miscellaneous leases which comprise chiefly year_ i# year tenures, and pastoral runs which, in the majority of cases, are re-selec-tions. Excluding these selections, the figures are as follow :—

" But 755 of these selections comprise areas of less than one acre, which are' not included in the agricultural and pastoral statistics in question, so that from the' standpoint of settlement the number of selections may be regarded as 5226. The Government Statistician gives the number of new holdings for the period as 4530, so that, taking into account the points I have raised in the early part of this statement, the sensational loss in holdings fades to a negligible quantity. LACK OF INSTANCES.

" Aggregation as a supposed evil in this country is very glibly referred to by many political.opponents of the present Government, but it is a significant fact that specific instances are very seldom brought under tho notice of the Minister of the Department. In the Land Acts of 1912, 1913, 1918, 1919, and 1920 the present Govx'mment mado very,comprehensive additions to the. anti-aggre-gation legislation of the ISOB Act, and these later provisions liavo undoubtedly proved an effective check to undue aggregation. With a view to putting the legislation into operation, three cases have been investigated daring Uie lask three years, but the inquiries failed to disclose wrongful aggregation. In a country such as New Zealand a certain amount of aggregation must necessarily obtain. I refer to" justifiable aggregation to meet special circumstances. For instance, a settler who takes up $ very small area.of land may subsequently find it necessary, in order to provide for a growing family, to add to his holding by purchasing a section adjoining. Again, a man may acquire an area of swamp land, and may subsequently find it necessary to add an area of dry country to enable him to work his holding profitably. For the same reason, holders of hilly pastoral country sometimes find it necessary to add an area of low-lying land to their original selection. In these and many similar cases that could be referred to, the selector acXs to his original holding, but it cannot be said that he is aggregating, in the sense that the term ia usually applied. The Government is most anxious to prevent undue aggregation, and if I am furnished with a specific instance where it is considered the anti-aggregation law has been contravened, immediate inquiry will be made.

ALLEGED LAND HUNGER.

" The Government has been urged to open up Crown lands, to break up the big estates, and to go in for a vigorous policy of land settlement. ■ The position is that at the present time there is available for immediate selection (preference being given to soldiers) no less than 750 sections, comprising 460,000 acres. As a. matter of fact, tbo Department has lia-d an % amplo ore-a available right, throughout th» pxrnd. jwdfit,- JMflgjjf.

The following arc the figures up to March, 1922:—

'-' And yet it has been asserted that the Government lost an opportunity of settling thousands of soldiers who were ' craving to go on the land.' This assertion and the suggestion made in this House that the Department should adopt a policy of settling 3000 men per year (an average of ten per day) discloses a very superficial knowldge of the subject. SUBDIVISION OF LARGE ESTATES.

" The Government has also been accused of holding the large estates intact and building up the city communities. Since 1912 the Government has purchased for subdivisional purposes no less than 400 estates throughout the Dominion of 682,283 acres, and costing £6,983,----901, which have been subdivided for closer settlement. .... Some 150,000

acres' of Crown lands have been subdivided, together with those properties, and the whole has been cut up into 3400 holdings. Three hundred and five properties included in the above figures were purchased for soldier settlement. The area was 473,000 acres, yielding 2139 holdings, and the cost was approximately five million and three-quarter pounds. " The land tax has been responsible for the breaking np of estates, and is also haying a marked effect in keeping areas within reasonable bounds. Where the unimproved value does not exceed £1000, the tax is Id in the £, but the rate is increased by one-twenty-thousand of a penny in the pound for every £ in excess of £1000 up to a maximum of 7fd, whilst ' there is a super-tax equal to 20 per cent, of the land tax payable as mentioned above. These provisions, which are, however, subject to certain exemptions specified in the Act, have exerted an undoubted influence in keeping down the area held by individuals, and it will be observed that of the 4530 new holdings since 1916 only five of them exceed 1000 acres."

Holdings. 31st March, 1917 ..... 1233 31st March, 1918 907 31st March, 1919 745 31st March, 1920 1389 31st March, 1921 1707 Area. 373,262 188,635 142,143 395,785 405,041 5981 1,504,866

Year. Available Area. Slat March, 1916 844,521 acres. ilst March, 1917 775,770 acres. ilst March, 1918 777,824 acres. Slst March, 1919 784,58.8 acres. ilst March, 1920 605,718 acres. ilst March, 1921 525,095 acres. Slsfc March, 1922 390,602 acres.