NEW LYNN LAND SCANDAL

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVII, Issue 8482, 17 July 1913, Page 6

NEW LYNN LAND SCANDAL

The freehold obsession of the selfstyled “Reform” party continues to prove a delusion and a snare so far as the public interest is concerned, but a very fine thing nevertheless for the speculator and a few most fortunate individuals. In consequence of widespread criticism, the Hon. W. F. Massey, in his speech in the House of Representatives on Tuesday night, found it impossible to avoid a few words in defence of his “policy” as it affects some land at New Lynn. Of course the Prime Minister threw the familiar “mare’s nest” phrase about very liberally, though on this occasion it is to be observed that he did hot simulate amusement. Mr Massey, however, spoke very vaguely on the subject, and bis assertion that “the State is being paid for its interest in the land” must utterly fail to convince anybody who will take the trouble to consider the circumstances. Let us briefly relate the facts. Some five years ago, several hundred acres of land belonging to the Crown, in what is named the Hetana Hamlet, were offered for settlement, in about eighty blocks, for the most part consisting of five acres. This land is within a stone’s throw of the New Lynn railway station, seven miles from the city of Auckland, and comprises some of the most desirable land in the township. The land- was submitted five years ago under lease for 33 years, with the ,righ.t of renewal at a re-valuation. The total area was then valued at an average of about £3O an acre, and the rentals ranged from 6s 9d to £3 16s per block of five acres. Meanwhile, of course, the value gf land at Now Lynn has gone up by leaps and bounds, reaching as high as £4OO an acre. Under the “Reform” Land Act of last year the New Lynn, or Hetana, tenants find themselves offered the right to acquire the freehold at a trifling advance on the original value. The land is consequently being cut up into quarter-acre sections for purposes of money-making, and the small farms established by the Liberal Government are being converted into residential lots. A settlement of holdings on which suitable and industrious men might make comfortable livings is to become a more or less congested suburb (for tho sub-division will not rest at quarter-acres). In order to help an unpopular party, which has never received the confidence • of the electors, to secure a few votes, those five-acre sections are to be cut up and made the subject of trafficking and speculation, while the wide domains of squattocracy are to be protected from close settlement. By means of this iniquitous Land Act of “Reform” tho State iis parting with land estimated to bo worth £30,000, and is not going to receive in return more than about £3OOO. These figures are based upon actuarial authority, and so far as we know are beyond challenge. It is useless for Mr Massey to say that, “the State is being paid for its interest.” We hold that the Government has no moral right to sell £30,000 worth of land for less than £30,000. We believe the system _of parting with the freehold at anything below current value to be one of the most scandalous and unprincipled bribes ever offered by a political party, and we are confident that no faction that was not desperately seeking support and place and power would stoop to such a degradation. This sacrifice of public wealth to private cupidity is perpetrated in accordance with the shibboleth of “security of tenure,” hut it is really .operating to destroy small farms and encourage speculation. And this is a farmers’ Government that wo have in office! And a party of purity and —save the mark —“Rer form”!