THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 1906. THE LAND BILL.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 13697, 13 September 1906, Page 6

THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 1906. THE LAND BILL.

The synopsis of tile Land Bill, circulated by the Government and contained in our issue of yesterday, does not add much, if anything, to the information, already furnished by the Minister of Lands lospecting his intentions. Despite the fact thai the collapse of the Budget debate seems to have inspired Ministers with the hope that they may succeed in carrying tlio Bill as a whole this year, it is more reasonable to conclude, inasmuch as only six or seven weeks remain before Parliament will rise, that they will have to be content in the current session with the enactment of that portion of the measure which is designed to limit the value of the lands that may bo retained iii the hands of private owners. The machinery which the Land Bill proposes to utilise for the enforcement of the £50,000 limit- is simple enough. I'he 63 owners in the colony who each possess land of an unimproved value in excess of £50,000 will be allowed a period of ten years within which to reduce tlieir estates to the prescribed limit. But if it is found, at the expiration of the term of ten years, t-liafc an owner whose name-is

registered in the "excess estate provisional roll" still owns land to an unimproved value of over £50,000, then the Government will step in. Preliminarily, in this event, the owner will bo prohibited from dealing in any way with his land, and the Government will proceed to sell such portion of ifc as the Valuergeneral lnav deeiit nccessary in order to reduce the unimproved value of the residue to £50,000. It is not quite clear what the basis of values is to be. The. first impression created by a perusal of the provisions of the Bill suggests that present values arc to be accepted as the basis upon which the scheme of the reduction of estates is to be operated. On the other liftnd, the provision that the "excess estate reduction, list," to bo compiled after the expiration of the ten years' grace, shall contaiii the names of the owners of rural land of an unimproved vailie exceeding £50,000 "as showii oh the valuation roll theii in force" introduces an elclntiHt of doubt. Ifc iimst be patent, however, that the fluctuations in land valiles will lie productive of endless cciifusion if some period is not fixed as that at which the valuations shall he established for the purposes of the proposed enactment. It may, of course, conceivably happen that, if present values are to he accepted, an owner whose property is reduced, in conformity with the provisions of the Government's proposals, to an arearepresenting an unimproved value of not more than £50,000 upon the basis of the valuation now placed upon his land, may still, through the appreciation of real estate, be fotuid at the expiration of the term of ten years to be the possessor of considerably more than £50,000 worth. But it will not be desired that the limitation proposals shrill be applied in such a way as to be aa harassing to the land-owner as they will be if ho is not afforded some assurance tliat the sales which, in a bona fide effort to conform to the provisions of the enactment, lie may make of por-t-ions of his property with the effect of reducing its value to the prescribed limit will constitute a sufficifitit cotlipliiiiice with the terms ot' the proposed law. It will, therefore, bo not only reasonable that the period at which values, for the purposes of the law, shall be accepted shall be those to be declared by the Valuer-general within the next twelve months—arid not least so because, as it will concede to the land-owner'such benefit as may be derived from the ten years' increment in t-lio unimproved value, it will soften in some degree the weight of the blow that is to be struck at him,—but it may also be claimed that it will be practically necessary. The scheme will plainly demand delicate handling in various respects, some of which were indicated in the course of the brief but animated discussion in the Lower Htnise on T'ltesday evening. The principle of the limitation proposals will, however, we think, meet with fairly general approval. Considerations respecting the identity of the land-owners who will be affected by the adoption of the principle are of not so much importance, and the demand which was made by Mr Massey and others that the names of tile persons who at present possess lands of a value exceeding the amount of the proposed limit was, therefore, scarcely valid, even if it was not possibly mischievous, for the reason that, if /it should be acceded to, the personal factor; which should be excluded from the discussion, may be introduced as an element influehc!ing in some flteasure tiie decision of Parliament. It is rather surprising, however, that Mr Baiime's request that the location of tlie estates to yliich the £50,000 limit will be applied was not readily granted, for to supply this information would involve biit a trifling elaboration of tho particulars supplied by Mr M'Nab *last iveek. Tiie Premier objected to comply with Mr Baume's request on the ground that the question is a colonial arid not a provincial one. But ifc is in: a very real sense a provincial question. We know already that the HaWke's Bay and Canterbury districts will be chiefly affected by the adoption, of the £50,000 limit. It i 9 suggested by Mr Baume that Auckland mil be hardly affected at all. Whether that be so or riot, it is fairly clear that tlie effect of the enactment of the Government proposals will be that, while an abundance of land will be available for purchase iii certain parts of the colony by persons desirous of securing freeholds, nothing but leaseholds will be obtainable in other districts. In this circumstance consists a distinct objection to that portion of the Land Bill which relates to the disposal of the Crown lands. The provisions of the measure whereby the holder of a lease in perpetuity may, on surrendering liis title, be accorded a chance of securing the fee simple of his land are not- likely to prove attractive to many settlers. And it will he irrational and incongruous if a farmer in Auckland or Westland should be driven to Hawke's Bay or Canterbury in order to satisfy his desii-e for a. freehold, while vast areas of Crown lands are awaiting settlement in his own provincial district.