Manawatu Daily Times Is There Land Aggregation?

Manawatu Times, Volume LIV, Issue 6804, 7 January 1929, Page 6

Manawatu Daily Times Is There Land Aggregation?

THAT land aggregation is going on steadily in New Zealand is a cry continually on the lips of certain of our more noisy and radical political propagandists. Quite a lot was heard of this matter at the last election, hut the statistical report on agriculture for 1927-28 just issued hardly hears out the arguments used.

A common device used in support of the charge of aggregation is to take the number of occupied holdings and the aggregate area of occupied land in the Dominion, perform a sum of simple division, and, if the result seems to show any adverse movement when two years arc compared, to claim triumphantly that aggregation is proceeding apace. The result often sounds effective, hut it is generally quite misleading. The holdings enumerated never include borough lands; they embrace properties down to one acre in extent.

In 1928 there were 15,181 holdings of from one to ten acres. When a new borough is formed, or an old one extends its boundaries, a large number of these very small holdings disappear from the records, but the effect on the aggregate acreage is small; hence the material for a claim that aggregation is rampant.

If the figures are examined more critically a movement the other way is plainly indicated. For instance, at first sight an increase between 1927 and 1928 in the number of estates above 320 acres—from which point they range to 50,000 acres and over —hy 12 suggests aggregation. Next it appears that those of from 320 to 640 acres increased by 30, suggesting there must have been decreases elsewhere. It is so, for the vast estates of from 20,000 to 50,000 acres declined by seven.

With that significant move, even the previously quoted increase of 12 does not indicate very serious aggregation, at least of the type most commonly implied in political controversy. A little further light is thrown on the position by a comparative table the returns supply. In considering it, the fact that the disappearance of holdings into borough boundaries tends to reduce the number and increase the average size should he remembered.

In 1919 the returns showed 80,468 occujned holdings the average area being 539 acres to the nearest unit; in 1928 the corresponding figures were 85,716 and 507. The trend in between has, with insignificant exceptions attributable largely to different methods of counting the returns, been all toward more holdings of smaller average size.