ALLEGED LAND AGGREGATION.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume LXV, Issue LXV, 1 August 1913, Page 3

ALLEGED LAND AGGREGATION.

IMPORTANT REPORTS.

On Tuesday the Premier laid oir the table of the House of uopresentativer papers and reports on me subject oi iana aggregation. Mr K. I<. Hawthorne, of the Land and Survey Department, reports as roiiows to the tinder-Secretary for Lands: "'I) Has there been aggregation or Hot? 'The term aggregation is, of course, both vague and elastic, but allowing for this, I think it may fairly be said that the case of the Jim-lings, in Aohanga and Mount Cerberus Survey Districts, is a case of real aggregation. The Messrs AW A. and li. k". burling have, since 1883, acquired 16,190 acres of freehold land and 1475 acres of leasehold. If 'aggregation' means the acquisition of a greater area thai, is necessary for tho reasonable maintenance of the purchaser and his family, then the Burlings' case is doubtless'one of aggregation, although tiu^e is nothing in the information supplied by the Commissioner of Crown Lands to indicate the class or quality of tho land in question. Out of this 16,190 acres, the area purchased by the Burlings direct from the Crown amounts to only 805 acres, and no less than 12,562 "acres were alienated from the Crown for cash prior to the year 1888. It is, therefore, absurd to charge either the present Government or the Department with maladministration. OTHER CASES. "The case or the Wilsons (Hautapu, etc.) cannot, I uimK, jje piacuu m the same category as that or me iiiulings. There are eight separate owners, Who hold aitogecncr an area or oood acres, made up of 42/ li acres treehold ami 23«tj acres leasehold. This gives au average ot £32 acres for eacn holder. Wtietuer or not tins should be regarded as a case of aggregation largely depends, it seems to n'e, on the relationship, ages, etc, or the various persons. • lne uorrmges (Hautapu district) hold a total area of 3W32 acrt* amongst four persons (average Vb3 acres), 325^ acres being freehold and 080 acres leasehold. This cannon, * think, be considered a very glaring case ol aggregation, although tnere is, -(if course, nothing to prevent its developing into such, unless more stringent legislation be passed. 'The cases of the Sh'.ctoys (Hautapu) ana the Masons (H-v.i'tapu) do not call for any special remark, even : the editor of the Mangaweka Settler admitting that t/ie areas 'aggregated' werw only sufficiently large to provide a comfortable living, and that the holders were residing and working the land ;' in a bona fide manner. RELATION TO IMS ACT. "(2) Is the aggregation ~; : :n id the result of the pas.ing of \h. r,>:'?;.' Laws ' Amendment Act, 1912? "The answer to this is. CV-tamly i wot. AH the purchases of ~.\m Bur- < lings were made between Juno 1883 i and May, 1912. The- Wilts''. te qui-I 1 sitions range from 1901 to ]'.;H, and! the Gorringes' from 1907 t.» 1910. Stuckey's and Mason's acquisitions were also all prior to the m.-sincr of the iyi2 Ace. "(3) At what time did aggregation begin and end? "Thie is partly answered in the pre- 1 ceding paragraph. ... As U, whon the aggregations will end, of course, largely depends on legislation Wealing with the matter being passed." DISCREPANT STATEMENTS: "(4) Area held by the Gorringes. "With regard to the discrepancy between the statement of Mr Lundius that the Gorringe* Ytow" held between 6000 and' 7000 acres of freehold land,' and Mr Brodericlvs statement that the Gorringes held only :V'32 acres of freehold, I have to elate that upon enquiry, it appears that V-v Lundius was merely using rough fi<;ii."es, and over-estimated the actual arc-a held. I understand from Mr Brodc: i; k that the smaller area (3932 ;»:,es) is the actual area held by t'->- (;-)rringes as freehold, as revealed l;y ;; careful search of the Land Registry Oifice. LEGAL POSITION. <;(o) Legal position. "In regard to the last point, I have to say that the statements in the reports of the Commissioner of Crown Lands, Wellington, regarding the law are, to the best of m.y knowledge, correct. "(Signed) E. F. HAWTHORNE." In an accompanying note to the Minister of Lands, the Under-Secre-tary (Mr John Strauchon) said he trusted the position disclosed might be found satisfactory in so far as the Land Board and the department were concerned. Mr Broderick, Commissioner ,of ! Crown . Lands for Wellington, also makes some observations, in the course of which he says: This agitation against' aggregation partakes of the nature of "crying over spilt milk." it is a recrudesence of a similar one that led to the restrictions of part 13 of the Land Act being placed (on all titles to land sold after November, 1907; but as all the land near Mangaweka was alienated prior to 1900 there is no power in the law to check the aggregation of it. Large areas held on the occupation with" right of purchase tenure near Mangaweka can be made freehold and aggregated at any time the owners choose to sell, without the Land Board being able to prevent it, but the Land Board always exercises tho greatest care to prevent aggregation wherever it hae jurisdiction. "Lease-in-perpetuity lands under the provisions of the Laad Laws Amendment Act are subject to the same restrictions as occupation with right of purchase lands alienated since November, 1907, but it is doubtful whether the restrictions of part 13 of the 1908 Act are sufficient to prevent all undue aggregation, because much of the land originally classed as secondclass would now be considered firstclass. Owing, however, to its original classification it can be held up to 2000 acres by one person without any infringement of the law. It is also manifest that holdings of first-class land can be aggregated up to 666 acres even in the vicinity-of the towns, • where from 10 to 50 acres..would support -a family;" '~ \-, It is extremely difficult',;1 the Commissioner adds, to conceive any law that Would restrict all undue aggregation by individuals and families without being too restrictive and irksome, but it may be deemed worthy of consideration whether it would not. be equitable to burden the freehold of lease-in-perpetuity .land with increased restrictions in return for the privilege the lessees have obtained by being allowed to purchase it. "I suggest," he says m conclusion, "that the area of converted lease-in-perpetuity that may be held by one person in the vicinity of towns shoiild not exceed 300 acres without the Minister's consent, or n-y. an alternative, that the Minister's consent must be obtained before such land can be sold to any but landless persons." 1