THE LAND BILL.

Opunake Times, Volume XXV, Issue 948, 12 February 1907, Page 4

THE LAND BILL.

PRONOUNCEMENT BY TijE N.Z. FiIiMEKS' UNION. (C'( ntinntd) tion of knowing that the bulk of his earnings instead of going to his own children, will be confiscated by the State. This is what we to offer intending emigrants to New Zealand, while other less favoured parts of tha Empire are offering the Freehold. They, however, are getting the increase of population, and must continue to do so; we certainly cannot hope to attain this desirable end. The next portion of the Land Bill deals with the limitation of Private "Estates in Land," but a clause in the Bill excludes from this limitation any land within "cities and boroughs." We do not propose to deal-with the a* pect of the question as to why rural lands and town lands should be separated; $ but it is passing strange that towns where enormous sums are mfde by speculating in lands should be left, whilst the occupiers or users of rural lands should have this limit placed upon them. The first limitation is that anyone holding more than. £50,000 wcrth of unimproved laud shall reduce his holding to that amount within ten years; and the second, that no man can purchase or .lease mora than) £15,000 unimproved worthy o$ land. The clause in relation td the latter limitation prohibiting the purchase of more than' £15,000 worth of land reads a 9 follows:—"In every case where rural lands held in fee simple or by a lessee is disposed of by way of sale, gift, or lease, the instrument of conveyance, gift or lease shall have sxibscribed thereto, on indorsed thereon, a statutory de> claration by the purchaser, donee or lessee, that including the land comprised in the instrument he is! not the owner or lessee, either by himself or with any other person ' or persons, of any rural lands any* where in New Zealand, the unimproved value ascertained as aforesaid of the unincumbered fee-simple of the whole of which exceeds fifteen thousand pounds/* Although the meaning of this l isG>involved, we take it tkafr whether an owner has a mortgage' or not, he may not purchase any land if he holds £15,000 worth; or if less, what he holds together with what he purchases must not in the aggregate be more than £15,000 unimpi-oved value, according to the value placed on it by the Valuation Department; and not—as at first sight might be supposed—that after deducting the amount of the mortgage, ho may hold £15,000 in' land. # In either case the difference is one of degree. Wc do not propose to deal with the principle of limitation of land to be held by owner or owners, whether by lease or freehold. This proposal in connection with private lands has never been discussed in our Union. # We will,, therefore, confine ourselves to the examination of the limitation as; proposed in the Bill. ■ To force a man to sell any area over a fixed; amount is a distinctly new departure, unsanctioned by the people. But common justice demands that, if this Procrustean method' is adopted, the forced seller should be able to place his land on the market under ordinary conditions. This the Bill does not allow. He cannot sell the land for' other than cash, because he could not foreclose if interest were not paid, as even after the paring, process had been completed he might have more than the prescribed limit.£

lb is true that the Lands Committee inserted a clause whereby the mortgagee could purchase land at a forced sale, but it is accompanied by a proviso that if the land is not sold within two years from the date of registration of the transfer "the registration shall become void for all purposes, and shall be cancelled by the Registrar." (Who the land would belong to when the transfer was cancelled, whether the Crown or the original defaulter, no one has yet been able to say.) To say nothing of the harshness of such a provision it would really be of no avail in most casest, for if the land were bought in by the mortgagee it would, no doubt, be at a time when prices were low and money scarce, so tha,t he would not be able to recoup himself in the time: And rather than have the transfer cancelled, he would require to take whatever price were offered or he would lose the whole. <"

This Bill, however, specially provides (Clause lib) that anyone on the £50,000 list cannot! take advantage of the above provision, for he can neither "become the purchaser" . . . . "or lessee under a sale by direction. of the Kegistrar of the Supremo Court"—the £50,000 man, therefore, for his owu safety, must sell for cash. Buyers, from him, would thus require to have one-third of the value of the laud at their command; before they could borrow the balance from some lender. $ As no one can hold —together with what he may purchase more than

£15,000 worth of land, the number of buyers is limited, and, as will be seen when wc come to discus? the question of the £15,000 limit, the price of money is raised, and the buyers are further limited, which all means the lowering of the value of land. The Union is not in favour of large estates, nor, as faa- as we are aware, is any member of it. Wo have recognised that what New Zealand wants is that ploughmen, shepherds, sons of farmers and others should have favourable opportunity of settling on the land; for these men have had a training —are experts, not amateurs! — and therefore likely to become of service to the State and successful for themselves. ,-, But this proposal would not give them any opportunity of taking land; they would not have the necessary capital. If, therefore, we are going to give these owners who hold more than £50,000 worth of land the opportunity of selling their lands, the £15,000 limit should be excised from the Bill, or we will most certainly depreciate the value of the land they are forced to sell, and not do those whom we wish to benefit any good. THE £15,000 LIMIT. The Minister, in speaking on his Bill, said that this limit was necessary to stop the £50,000 men cutting up their estates amongst their own families. When the list of holders of land over £50,000 unimproved value comes to be revised, it will probably be found there are not more than 20 (Crown lands are excluded, so that tenants of pastoral country are not on the list). We will now examine the result of the limit of £15,000 more closely. > It must never be forgotten that, practically speaking, the land of any country is the ultimate security for all the debt (public and private) and the credit allowed to the inhabitants. To seriously interfere with that security means that the whole credit of the inhabitants has to be re-adjusted, and we will proceed to show what those best qualified to judge think will be the effect of this £15,000 limit. It is obvious that we cannoC give names, p but the information is hona-fide and not suppositious. A bank inspector said, as far as his bank was concerned, that, when they had to realise an estate in the past they nursed it in the interest of the owner y and only on rare occasions was there a total loss to him. But now, with such a provision as was proposed, limiting the holding of land to £15,000, by which they could not look upon any security in the way of country lands as * first class, they would require to realise as best they could in their own interests, and they could not protect the owner. The whole of their advances would require to be reconsidered.

A commercial man, whose name is a household word in New Zealand, says:—'"The effect of the Government Land Bill must bring on a most grave upheaval, destroying confidence and causing serious loss. The evil effect's of the Bill will soon make themselves felt, and the colony will be taught a lesson which will have a very steadying effect, and which will bring people to their senses." Here is a business man, having no land liimselfjftl foreseeing the gravest consequences to the people, not from a landowner's point of view, but that the town must suffer. City people who do not come into contact with the farming' community seem to forget that the prosperity of the country is almost, entirely due to the export of the produce of the land, and that anything that unsettles the producer diminishes the output. The manager of one of the largest agencies in New Zealand, which deals with the produce of farmers, and therefore has frequently to find large amounts in the way of accommodation for them, on being asked if the passing of the Land Bill would affect the rate of interest to his clients, replied : "Most certainly, but how much I cannot say." "Ono per cent.?" "More than that certainly, but how much more no one can say. If you prejudice our security we must charge - a higher rate; the rate of interest iii entirely dependent on the security offered. The Land Bill will affect the security of some farmers most seriously, and we shall have to charge them a rate according to the risk, which will be much increased." Another said: "Besides our firm having many clients in the farming community, lam a director of a company which lends money on land. We entirely ceased lending money when we saw the position wc would be placed in if the Land Bill passed, .lor we could not hold land if we were forced, to sell. Our own business would be very serioiisly affected, and our clients would have in the end to bear the brunt of it and pay much higher rates and their advances curtailed." 'jo j:s: cost nted.