[From The Otago Daily Times.] THE FAIR RENT BILL.

Otago Witness, Issue 2170, 26 September 1895, Page 3

[From The Otago Daily Times.] THE FAIR RENT BILL.

One of the crudest of the many crude measures brought forward this session is the Fair Eent Bill introduced into the House by the Hon. Joiin M'Kenzib. The Bill proposes to remit to a tribunal, the chairman of which may be the stipendiary magistrate of the district, the power to determine the rent of any land under lease, the term of which has existed at least two years and has at least two years to run. There is no limit fixed as to how long this rent so determined by the fair rent tribunal is to last. There may under the Bill be a yearly adjustment of rent. The rent on farming land is to be determined by ■what the land can produce after allowing for interest on capital and for the labour of the tenant. The best way perhaps to criticise the proposal is to give instances as to what may happen. "We will suppose that 20,30, or 40 years ago a piece of land was let — and many leases in the North Island were — for 42 and 66 years. The rent at which the land was then let may be, as compared with the value of the land now, merely nominal. This is the case in many leases of land in some of the chief towns of the colony. The original tenant may be dead, or he may have transferred his lease, and it may now be in the hands of a tenant who may have paid a heavy sum for the good-will of the lease. We may mention a case, suppressing the names. A leC to B a piece of land in a town at a rental of .£4O some 25 years ago. lease has now 10 years to run. It' it 'was let to-day it would fetch at least ,£2OO per annum. B transferred to C, getting £1000 for the lease, and C transferred to D, who sold it, and ultimately it got to the hands of E, who paid for it £1750. Under the Bill, if it becomes law, A, the landlord, can apply to the court to have the rent fixed at £200, and thus may ruin E, for he expects the difference between the present rent and the actual value to recoup him for the premium he paid for his lease. This shows how the tenant may be injured. Let us give an illustration how a landlord may be affected. Suppose A let to B a piece of land 10 years ago for 21 years. The rent was £100 per year. Value of land has fallen, and it is now worth only £75 per year. But A borrowed money on the land, and it takes all the rent to pay interest on his mortgage. B, the tenant, applies to have his rent reduced, and it is reduced to £75. This rent cannot pay the interest on the mortgage. What is Atodo ? He is ruined and he loses his land. Vet •when he let to B he could ha\e gut plenty o£ tenants to take his land ai £100 per annum, and he give it to 13 as a favour, and also because lie kncv> B would always be good for the rent. But under this Bill he loses his holding. Then, if we take the eaf>e of farming land, the rent may in three bad years fall, but it may go up in three good yearb. In there ie be It perpetual adjustment ? Who would

be either tenant or landlord if there is no certainty as to rent ! It is not the case where if the rent is raised the tenant can quit or if lessened the landlord can get another tenant. The lease, save as to the rent, is to remain in existence. Then there is a Wffe number of cases where there are building- covenants and agreements to renew, and leases containing periodical adjustments of rents every 10 years : are all these provisions to be treated as mere waste paper ? This Bill, therefore, is not only an alteration of the law of contracts, but it is a law not required, and one that must be most injurious to many in the community. Further, its effect will be so unsettling that enterprise will be checked. What tenant would care to build on land, or what capitalist would lend money to a tenant to build, if there was no security as to what the rent should be? Were this law passed a serious blow would be hit at the building trade. There would be less work for carpenters, plumbers, plasterers, painters — indeed for all who work in and about buildings. We do not deny that it may be necessary to set up a tribunal to deal with State tenants, but we think the Waste Lands Board, if properly chosen, should bo appointed to readjust the rents of the Crown tenants should it be necessary from the change of the prices or bad seasons to give them any relief. But under this Bill, if passed, the rents of Crown tenants may be raised. The lease in perpetuity under it becomes a farce. There is no security, for every other year the rent may be raised. There is no finality ; and if there is no certainty in the tenure what tenant will improve? The farmers in England, Scotland, and Ireland have clamoured for years for fixity of tenure and fixity of rent. Under this Bill there is no fixity, for the rent may ever vary. And this evil will be worse with Crown tenants than Avith even private tenants. With officers removable at the pleasure of Ministers to fix rents, what an opening will be afforded for political corruption ! And we do not need to point out that political coi ruption is not only not unknown in this colony, but that unfortunately it is ramjjant. We have given illustrations how the Bill will affect private persons who have bought leases or have advanced money on the faith of existing leases continuing, and we ask what good will the Bill do"? We do not deny that there are many hard cases of tenants paying too high rents, and some cases of tenants paying too low rents ; but is the State to step in whenever a citizen makes a bad bargain or loses by a speculation ? If so, there are many shareholders of banks that might as well petition for relief. How many have placed their a ]l — their provision for old age-s-in the purchase of bank sliares, and with what a calamitous result! The State cannot give relief to them : it demands by its Bank Bill that they shall pay the uttermost farthing. Why, then, should people who have speculated in land or leases be freed from their bad bargains ? And if this Bill is passed, where is the limit of State interference to end? Should the Bill, as some Labour bodies have asked, not also appoint an Arbitration Court to rule the rate of interest on mortgages, on bills of sale, on discount of bills, &c. ? There are just as many hard bargains driven by money-lenders, large and small, as by landlords or tenants ; and if the Bill is needed or is just it must include not only the rent of land but the interest of money. And will it stop there? Suppose wheat is sold by a farmer to a miller and wheat goes up, ought not a court to fix the price of wheat so that the farmer may get a share of the profit ? Or, if wheat falls, ought not the miller to have the right to go to this arbitration tribunal to get the price he agreed to pay lowered because wheat has fallen? In fact, it comes to this : ought people to be allowed to make bargains at all, or should not a State-appointed tribunal do all the buying and. selling, fixing rents, interest, and prices for them? That is what the Fair Kent Bill logically leads to. And then when the right to contract is ended, we suppose we shall have a Socialistic State such as will please Messrs M'Kenzib, ; Reeves, and Co. Whether our last condition will in that event not be , worse than the first we need not say. The common sense of our readers can be trusted to give a fitting answer to such crude and absurd suggestions as have emanated from the Minister for Lands in this Bill.

New roller plant is to bo put in tbo Ophir flour mill,