The Evening Star THURSDAY, AUGUST 16, 1928. THE MATAKANUI RENEWAL.

Evening Star, Issue 19946, 16 August 1928, Page 6

The Evening Star THURSDAY, AUGUST 16, 1928. THE MATAKANUI RENEWAL.

Tnn case of the Matakanui small grazing run, concerning which the Otago Land BoarcJ. made so remarkable a decision last week, was discussed in Parliament yesterday. It is unnecessary to repeat in detail the facts so recently reviewed in these columns. All that, needs emphasising is that because this land is worked as part of a station which embraces other land held under different tenures the amount of compensation payable to the runbolder, if resumption for subdivision and closer settlement were decided on by the board, would considerably exceed the freehold value of the land. Such was the finding of the arbitrators—-Messrs James Bcgg and James Ritchie. When the owner of land (in this case the Crown), iu order to effect a change of tenant, is called on virtually to buy back his own land and pay over a cash balance to boot, the position savours of A flat contradiction of Euclid’s postulate that the part cannot bo greater than the whole. The question of the personnel of the arbitrators was mentioned in tho parliamentary discussion yesterday. The lessee’s representative and the board’s representative aro both nmholdcrs, members of which class are notoriously sympathetic to one another when compensation lias to bo assessed. Furthermore the board’s representative is a neighbour of the lessee, and, despite the argument that he would therefore bo able to bring special local knowledge to bear, tho board’s choice is open to criticism. But tho personnel of tho arbitrators may bo put on one side iu view of tho fact that tho principle on which they made their calculations had tho approval of tho Solicitor-General, whom they consulted. That official gave his opinion that tho law required such methods of computation as produced so remarkable a result. Ho, however, so far as the Land Board’s proceedings disclosed, expressed no opinion as to tho real intention of tho law or as to tho desirability of its being altered. That was left to tho acting chairman of tho board, who said: It seemed to him a quite just and sound arrangement that if tho Crown granted a right, and subsequently modified it, a lessee bad a claim to bo put in tho same position, so far as money could put him, as ho had been before his lease was modified. It was on that basis that the arbitrators had brought forward their award.

fortunately the Minister oi Lands and some members of Parliament do not take that view. When Parliament was altering the laud laws sixteen years ago it did not take that view. This particular alteration modified the lessee's perpetual right of renewal at the end of each twenty-one years’ term of tho lease by giving the Crown the right of resumption if it deems the property suitable for subdivision. With such a provision on tho Statute Book the view might easily he held that the right of renewal at once became valueless. It was to show that tho Grown did not take entirely that view that provision was made, to appoint two arbitrators to assess that value. Parliament at that time imagined it had (lone something tangible for closer settlement and had acted fairly by all interests concerned. But the new provision for subdivision has remained ever since a dead letter. It now appears that tho reason is the altogether unexpected operation of tho provision for arbitrators to assess compensation. From tho Matakamii case one deduces that the lessee of a small grazing run would receive far less compensation if that were the only land lie held than would a lessee possessing other land in addition. So far as it goes it is welcome to have Mr M'Leod’s admission that tho law is not working out according to its original intent or to his own desire. It appears to be tho interpretation of tho law rather than tho law itself which is at fault. It is difficult to read into the statute as it stands what the Crown Solicitor lias evidently deduced from it. The scope of the arbitrators has, however, not been defined, and probably it is in that direction that amendment is rec(iiircd. it could be wished that the Minister had given a more definite promise than “seeing it additional legislation was required in regard to a better adjustment.” Additional legislation. also an administration which is palpably in earnest over closer settlement, must replace tho present policy if the young manhood of New Zealand is to be retained instead of looking elsewhere for land. Mr Forbes, who came to Air Horn’s assistance in presenting a ease for tho land hungry in Central Otago, declared that at present young men were packing up their trunks and leaving New Zealand for Western Australia, which State was draining away some of the best settlers of this country.