THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS MONDAY, MAY 20, 1929. LAND AND THE LAW.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20259, 20 May 1929, Page 10

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS MONDAY, MAY 20, 1929. LAND AND THE LAW.

Sfeakixg at Dunedin some days ago the Prime Minister—referring to the \Vestella estate—said the Government had acquired a property and cut it up, "but was impeded by its inability to gel men who, owned large territories to recognise that it was their duty to put fair values on their land. A change had been made by the late Government, which had enabled landowners to place large values on the roll. They could value their properties at any amount they thought proper and the real value was never assessed. The result had been that landowners had been putting high valuations on their land because they did not want it taken from them. The Government would have to alter the law so that it would have fair values under a new system of valuation." With this as a text, with other recent Ministerial statements supporting it, a little investigation of the law on the point is instructive. Since the Government seems to regard the compulsory acquisition of estates as a kind of royal road to successful settle ment, there is a moral to be drawn too. It is quite correct that under the Land for Settlements Act, an owner can, by notifying the ValuerGeneral, put his own valuation on his land, having it recorded on a roll subsidiary to the district valuation roll. He may submit any figure he likes, and in the event of compulsory purchase, that sum, plus prescribed percentages, becomes the price of the land. Owners can exercise this power only in the month of March, or within one month of a new official valuation having been made for their land. They cannot cancel their own figure until 12 months after having submitted it, and are liable to pay land tax on this special valuation as long as it remains uncancelled. The statute says definitely that the owner's valuation shall be available only for the assessment pf compensation on compulsory purchase, and for the assessment of land tax.

On the facts quoted so far, Sir Joseph Ward was quite correct in his claim regarding valuations. His statement that it was the result of a change made by the late Government is utterly incorrect, a wholly unjustifiable charge against his predecessors. This provision of the law has stood since 1907, when it was included in a Land Laws Amendment Act introduced by the late Dr. McXab as Minister of Lands. Dr. McNab then said the valuation would be for three 'purposes, compulsory purchase, land 'tax and death duties. Its employment for the assessment of death-duties was struck out of th 6 law almost immediately afterwards. In this amended form the clause was included in the consolidation of 1908. It has stood in that form ever since. All the late Government did was to transfer it to the Consolidated Act put on the Statute Book in 1925. Thus that provision of the law about which Sir Joseph Ward complains is an actual legacy, without a single alteration, v from his own Administration of That does not make it good law. It is, in fact, thoroughly bad, and no virtue in the Government which introduced it, or those Governments which subsequently allpwed it to remain in force, can make it anything else. The main objections, as summed up in 1907, were that it was unfair-to inflate values arbitrarily by holding over the heads of landowners the threat of compulsory acquisition and impolitic to allow that inflation where it could easily be taken advantage of in special cases. Those objections still hold. The results of the clause were not long appearing. Between 1904 and 1908, the State acquired for closer settlement 506,879 acres at'a cost of £1,868,213, an average of £3 13s 8d an acre. Between 1908 —when the clause became operative—and 1912, 174,803 acres were acquired at a co6t of £1,140,702, or an average of £6 10s 6d an acre. The purchase price per acre virtually doubled. There may have been other causes, but there is a suspicious flavour of artificial inflation about this doubling of the average purchase price. It is implied by Sir Joseph Ward that the law will be amended to provide a new system of valuation for compulsory purchase.. It is an undertaking about which the Government should be very cautious. Public opinion would not tolerate confiscatory purchase. In any endeavour to assess compensation there is I always a danger of going the other I way. As suggested in Southern comment the other day, "experience has shown that when tlie Government comes regularly into the field as a buyer prices harden." To talk of acquiring great estates to make small farms sounds well on the platform. Coldly considered as a practicable proposition, its glitter disappears. In his last report to the Minister, the Land Purchase Controller says:—"lt was found as a general rule that even those properties which were offered at fairly reasonable prices, ' considered as going concerns, could not bear the extra charges of subdivision, roading, etc., and be thereafter offered for selection at prices affording prospective settlers a fair chance of success. ... It is only on comparatively rare occasions that suitable land can bo bought at prices that will allow of a reasonable return on capital outlay plus the necessary additional charges." These are significant statements. This Government; has purchased and subdivided one estate of acres, which has just been balloted. It was parcelled out in 12 sections of between 02 and 75* acres each, the prices being from £OO to £7O an acre

roughly. Thcso values may be justified, but there cannot be much subdivision at such figures without grave risks. The obvious moral is that settlement by purchase and subdivision, if not an illusory scheme, is certainly a dangerous one. The theory is attractive. The difficulty is to find, in private hands, the estates to which it may be applied. Meanwhile, as a series of deputations to the Minister of Lands from settlers in the Hauraki Plains area shows conclusively, the Crown is the real owner of the vast estates that should be made available for settlement. The evidence concerning Crown lands held there, which should be profitably occupied, is too striking to pass lightly over. Let the Government concern itself with this, and it will not have time or need to worry over the state of the law concerning the acquisition of private estates. At most it might remove from the Statute Book a mischievous clause that has stood sineo 1907, and wait until real need arises before trying to put something else in its place.