CROWN TENANTS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21578, 25 February 1932, Page 15

CROWN TENANTS

CONFERENCE WITH MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT SERIOUS FINANCIAL POSITION Members of the recently constituted Crown Tenants’ Association conferred with the three South Canterbury members of Parliament, Messrs T. D. Burnett, J. Kitchener, and Clyde Carr, at Timaru on Friday last, placing before them the serious position in which most Crown tenants were placed at the present tune. The meeting was presided over by Mr 1) - Morrison, and there were about 26 other members present. The chairman, after extending a welcome to the three members of Parliament, said that, in common with other sections of the community, Crown tenants found themselves engulfed in the economic problems that confronted not only the Dominion but the whole world. Owing to their singular position as tenants of the Crown, they were governed by what was known to the general public as a land policy. Interwoven in that policy were three very important items, namely, administration, finance, and valuation. Never in the history of the Dominion was there greater need for a liberal and comprehensive land policy. The future of the Dominion depended on a good or bad I ana policy. It seemed to him that the present land policy required recasting. There was, so far as he could see, no definite security of tenure and no inducement to produce the maximum out of one s tenure. Let them take, for instance, a Crown lease for 21 years, S.G.R., 20,000 acres, unimproved, assessed at £IOO rental per annum, with absolute security and right of renewal, with full valuation for improve* ments. The tenant had,_ during the 21 years, highly improved his property, and ‘increased its carrying capacity by 1000 sheep. Owing to his lease expiring, his rent had increased 100 per cent. Not only that, but the tenant had had the acreage reduced from 20.000 to 10,000 acres, bo much for absolute security. Then they came to the closer settlement of thedand policy, which demanded that certain lands be cut up into small holdings. He considered that when that Act came into force there should have been provision made that close ■ settlement apply onlv to the high front country and farni lands. He was convinced .that a very big mistake.was made in applying closer settlement to the high back country. High back country could be worked profitably only in large areas. He was also convinced that through the closer settlement of the high back country the flocks had become smaller and the class of sheep deteriorated. Nor did they see the long, even lines of sheep. Take, for instance, Morven Hills station, which used to run 100,000 eheep, and employed much more labour than at present. Unfortunately, much of the low country was cut up into holdings that were too small, and rents were too high from the beginning, especially country lying at the foothills of South Canterbury. The only way to make this class of country pay was to increase the areas, or bring the rents down by 50 per cent. It was only grazing land, not cropping land. The present tenants have been forced to crop on account of the small acreage. They should b e growing green feed for eheep only. SOLDIER POLICY. Mr Morrison went on tp sketch briefly the soldier .policy, He said that he considered the policy was doomed to failure from its very inception, because it demanded that every commissioner of Crown lands and his boards should form themselves into stock and station agencies, without due consideration of its personnel, robbed of all business methods on account of so many regulations and red tape. A limited finance was the cause of so many soldier failures, and also the oversight of the various land boards to recognise that the advances made were insufficient for the successful working of the farm or holding. He thought it was admitted that to be a successful .farmer one must have capital in reserve for a rainy day. But the policy did not provide for a rainy day. He trusted the future policy would give absolute security of tenure, full protection of the tenants profits, and the fee simple of his property. There was no tenure so secure as freehold. He hoped also that the future policy would be such that a Crown tenant would be able to hand down his lease from one generation to another, and to stop all trafficking in Crown lands. If the farmers of the Dominion treated their farms as a business man treated his business, there would not be so many failures. ~ , ■ , Mr Morrison next referred to the amended legislation that had just come into operation. He said that it seemed to him that its virtues were robbed because there was no provision for revaluation. What was the use of remitting the arrears of rent if there was still going to lie excessive high rents? There was only one way of getting back to prosperity, and that was to stabilise land values. This could be achieved, he considered, through the medium of a liberal land policy and a better system of land valuation. The Valuation Department put three values on land, the unimproved value, the value of the improvements, and the aggregate of the two was the capital valiie. In theory this system was perfect, but when put into practice it was faulty. How could they go on to a high.y improved property and assess the unimproved value? Then, again, it seemed to be the practice of various departments to make excessive valuation when assessing for rents, on the off chance that tne tenant would accept as final the department’s valuation. There were many instances of the Crown tenant taking his case to arbitration and securing a deduction of 10 per cent, to 20 per cent.— surely a faulty system or lack of expert knowledge or a system of exacting the last farthing of rent. The total disappearance of any security in land was surely a national calamity. The powers that be must work for one objective—the return of gilt-edged security in broad acres. PASTORAL LEASES. Mr H. MacFarlane confined _ ins remarks to pastoral leases, quoting two examples in which the leases were both over 4000 acres in extent, the upset rental of one being £235 and of the other £287, which was approximately Is and Is 3d per acre. In February, 1911, these leases were sold under the iniquitous and objectionable procedure of pub he auction, the previous tenants, being the purchasers, having been run up to outrageous rentals above the upset by outside land aggregators to over £3OO m one instance, .and £407 in the other, making such rentals Is 3d and Is 9d per acre, or increases of 25 per cent, and 40 per cent, respectively. Hopelessly overrented Crown tenants had been exploited to the advantage of the State, and today because of such exploitation, with prevailing disastrous economic conditions added, a great many tenants had been reduced to penury after having experienced inglorious conditions of State serfdom. The Prime Minister, in the House, made the statement, “the condition of farmers, particularly the sheep farmers of Canterbury, is one of absolute desperation,” which, unfortunately, was perfectly true. The Minister of Lands, with Asquithian tranquillity, was adopting a ‘‘ wait-and-see ” policy. So far, only postponements of rent had been granted, which was not relieving the situation at all. Nothing short of remissions of rent and reductions of rentals in ail instances where hardships and injustices were operating would ameliorate “ the condition of absolute desperation.” Mr MacFarlane next dealt with the Tenants’ Pastoral Relief Act, of 1895, stating that Sir John MTvenzie met a similar though far less serious situation in that year, when he brought down the Pastoral Tenants Relief Act. This Act gave great relief to those persons engaged in pastoral pursuits who had suffered exceptional loss of live stock through the unexampled severity of the winter of that year. Those who took advantage of the Act were able to pull through, becoming indispensable producers again. Under the Act, the Minister of Lands had power to remit 12 months’ rent, extend terms of lease, accept surrender of existing lease and issue a new one, and to remit or refund sheep rates to persons who were not Crown tenants.— (Applause.) equity OF SACRIFICE.

Mr P. Kidd said that in the Fairlie district farmers had been very badly hit by the financial depression, and this year conditions had been aggravated by the drought—the worst South Canterbury had experienced for 30 years. The Canterbury Land Board, he said, had done its best for Crown tenants by postponing some rents until May, 1932. This procedure, however, could not go on indefinitely, and a number of Crown tenants were wondering what was going to hap-

pen after May. If the department insisted on payment at that date, quite a number of tenants in the Fairlie district would be forced to walk off their holdings minus their savings, and would go to swell the ranks of the unemployed. If this position were brought about it would, in the speaker’s opinion, be a sorry day for New Zealand. Never in this country had there been a period such as the present, when good, sound primary producers should be kept on their holdings Quite a number of farmers had reached the end of their financial resources, and if these men were not given relief there would be a crisis unprecedented in the history of the country. The Government had arranged a reduction of one-half per cent., but he ventured to say that if an interest reduction of 3i per cent, had been brought about New Zealand would have been in a better position to-day. Equality of sacrifice was badly needed at a time like the present. The chairman had saijJ that the Lands Amendment Act did not give the right of revaluation, but the speaker was of opinion that by reading section 1 it would be shown that those who had a place revalued in 1927 still had the right of revaluation. In 1929 many fanners had secured revaluations, and, although then the country was facing a - crisis, there had in some instances been an increase of 100 per cent, in rent. In 1916-17 and 1918, boom years, places bad not been revalued at only 100 per cent., but even to 300 per cent. If these people had their valuations increased in the boom period, was it not fair that they should be entitled to revaluations along with those revalued during 1927-32? Once the primary producer had balanced his budget, the balancing of the Dominion finances would be an easy matter. When the farmer was on his feet money would begin to circulate,, and unemployment would automatically fade away. The next speaker was Mr C. W. Markham, who said that they desired to bring under the notice of the members the fact that the Minister of Lands would not give power to the proposed Advisory Committees to advise the revaluation of any land or farm. This was obviously wrong, for in many cases the main cause of tenants’ failure was land valued at too high a figure.- Land bought and valued when wheat was over 6s a bushel, wool Is to 3s a pound, lamb at lOd per lb, and butter at 2s per lb, must be too dear at the present prices at which these commodities seemed to be stabilising. They desired specially to ask that the combined services of members of Parliament be given to bringing about a more satisfactory revaluation policy, and also to try to make the way clear for the poorer tenant to get his land revalued. Many tenants needed relief by revaluation of their farms, but very few conid raise the necessary £5 5s in the present state of their finances. Mr Markham proceeded to deal with the case of the men who were dependent entirely on wool and surplus stock. He said that these men, if their land was given to them rent free till the depression passed, would hardly be able to make a living, after their ordinary expenses were paid, and yet. if they refused to make the necessary sacrifice and carry on, if they walked off their runs after sacrificing their stock at present-day prices, what had the Government gained, for this class of country ceased to be an asset to the country the moment it lost its stock. Thus they submitted that the Government must assist these men to protect its own equity. For the same reason the : Land Department should strive, wherever possible, to bring about a satisfactory working proposal when a settler was handicapped by\ an unwarranted big goodwill. In every case a settler who saw his way clear to a final clearance of his debts would work harder and produce more than a man worried.to death with debts.

_ The speaker dealt fully with the position of the returned soldier, and suggested the appointment of an axlministrator for farm lands, such administrator to be a practical farmer, who would be responsible to the Land Board for his particular district. He also considered that living expenses should be a first charge on revenue, and concluded by stating that what Crown tenants desired was equality of sacrifice. In times of depression the primary producer was always asked to bear the lion’s share, and this should not be so. NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN.

Mr Burnett said that he wanted them clearly to understand that at the present time the Dominion was confronted with such a crisis that it was not a time for sectional, interests, but a time for the whole Dominion to be organised to meet a new order and a new period. The three members of Parliament present had attended to all matters affecting Crown tenants which had been brought under their notice, and he believed tfiey had done something towards rousing the Government to the great change which had come over farmers’ working conditions, due to the fall in the \priees of produce. He had all along advocated that there should be a fixed rental,-based on the export value of the goods they produced. He believed that times were so bad that no one could expect them to pay the rentals they paid when times were good. A great many of them were finding it very difficult to pay, while others, through accumulated reserves and overdrafts from firms, were still paying, but they could not expect to go on breaking the hearts of those who were, through no fault of their own, unable to pay. Everyone was greatly concerned as to what the Government was going to do in the next two or three weeks. Although they had passed legislation dealing directly with Crown tenants, the present situation was so serious, and everyone was so anxious as to how the primary producer was going to be enabled to carry on, that his attitude was not going to be directed towards any particular 'ection, but towards the whole of the people concerned. Mention had been made of insecurity of tenure, but he could say that they had gone a long way towards obtaining security, and they had abolished the iniquitous practice of submitting leases to auction. He did not agree with all the Government had done, but he had to point out that there were many people who were ready to take advantage of the depression and the slump, and were waiting for the Government to make wholesale reductions. Everyone must play the game and endeavour to meet his responsibilities. The Government had endeavoured to meet the situation according to its ■lights. He did not approve of many steps the Government had taken. or instance, he did not believe in postponements or remissions, and would like to see each lease fixed at a rental that could be paid, according to conditions, such rentals to be subject to review in 12 months’ time. — (Applause.) Mr Bitchener said that quite a number of matters that had been brought under the notice of members that day were not new; in fact, some would agree that they had been worn threadbare. They had been hammering away at several of the matters for years, and his colleagues and himself would no doubt be entitled to claim that in a number of directions improvements had been secured. He agreed that it was absurd to ask many small holders to pay a re-valuation fee of £5 ss, and this charge wanted inquiring into. If a man possessed 5000 or 10,000 acres it might be different, but it was, not fair to expect a man with 10 or 15 aeresr—many fruit farmers around Waimate had that area—to expend £5 6s before a re-valuation could be made. He was conversant with the difficulties men had been obliged to face since the settlements had been taken up. Many of the farms had never been a success, as even in the rosiest of times it was very difficult to farm land successfully when carrying only about 150 sheep. “ It was largely due to the prices paid for the land in the first place, and the way it was cut up afterwards that the settlements had never been a success,” he said. Like Mr Burnett, the speaker said, he was of opinion that a postponement of rents would never get Crown tenants anywhere, and he hoped that in the future this would never be done: “ What I do hope is that the time is not far distant when something will be clone to clean up this present dirty mess, and let farmers get on again,” he said. It was generally known that land was a liability to-day. and present prospects for a rise in prices did not look too cheerful. Under the circumstances it would be necessary to get their rents and other outgoings down to a minimum, and at the same time reduce all other expenses. Mr Carr said that the members knew the Crown tenants’ troubles, and it was to be hoped that something would be done to evolve some scheme to keep as many people as possible on the land. Information that had been conveyed to them that afternoon as to some people being forced off their holdings,, was certainly in need of investigation.—(Applause.) Like Mr Burnett, he regarded the problem as a basic one. and the difficulties a 6 symptomatic of the disease. He felt that the fundamental cause of the disease was national and international, and would have to be dealt with

as such. Until they were able to restore confidence very little could be done. If they could not get money, they would have to put more money into circulation, and he considered this a safe move within certain safeguards all three South Canterbury members had approached the Minister of Lands again and again in relation to individual cases which had been brought before them, and had done what they could to secure sympathetic and helpful treatment from those in authority. If the Government had helped the man on the land and the worker to balance his domestic budget they would have gone a long way towards balancing the national Budget. If they imagined that because he was a Labour man that his sympathies were confined to Labour at the expense of the farmer, or employer, then they had a very wrong idea of the policy of the party to which he had the honour to belong. Their sympathy and solicitations were not limited to the workers. He thought it was about time the working farmer woke up to the fact that his interests were in common with those of the workers in the cities, and all their interetes were bound up together.— (Applause.) Mr A. E. Kerr asked Mr Burnett it he was in favour of better representation on the Land Board; say men to represent the high country and men to represent the low country.

Mr Burnett replied that the present representative on the board was a very experienced man. The trouble was, however, that the board was overwhelmed with work. Mr MacFarlane said that if the board in the past had been comprised of men of greater vision trafficking in land would have been stopped. Mr Angland moved a motion that there should be four representatives of settlers on the board, with the Commissioner of Lands to have the balance of power, but there was no seconder to the motion. After further brief discussion the chairman moved a vote of to the three members of Parliament, which was carried by acclamation.