THE LAND PROBLEM.

Otago Witness, Issue 3084, 23 April 1913, Page 55

THE LAND PROBLEM.

QUESTION OF AGGREGATION. STATEMENT BY MR MASSEY. (Fbou Oub Own Cobhespondent.) WELLINGTON, April 21. Statement's that aggregation of land it proceeding apace in the Rangitikoi, Mangaweka. and neighbouring districts have been made recently in a number of Opposition newspapers. The Hon, W. F. Massey (Prime Minister and Minister of Lands) made the following statement on the subject this evening:— “The report which lose come to hand from the Lands Department, shows: (1), That there has been aggregation to some extent; (2), that there has been no aggregation as a resuit of the passing of the Land Act of lust year; (3), t'nat in the districts where aggregation was supposed to have taken place there have been no such cases sinco the present Government came into office.” On the latter point the Commissioner says, speaking of Mangaweka; “As all the land near Mangawcka was alienated prior to 1900 there is no rawer in the law to check the aggregation of it. Since 1 received your last communication I have examined every phase of aggregation in that locality, so that I ' think you may rely on it that the cases quoted are the only ones of any importance. The cases mentioned arc where an area of 4123 acres is hold by four members of a family, each one owning a section. Half of this is described as suitable for dairy farming and t*iie other half as sheep country. In this case the first section was purchased in 1907, and the last in 1910. There is one other case where a settler holds 1111 acres, pare freehold and part leasehold. He acquired this land in 1907.” There is one other, but the commissioner is uncertain whether there are two occupiers or only one. The area concerned is 1732 acres, part freehold and pars leasehold. This land was acquired in 1912. An impression seems to have got about that nine people of the same name in one locality were nil of One same family and holding a largo area of land, but on inquiry I have ascertained that the pcoplo referred to belong to four different families, no one of such families being related to die oilier. The Commissioner also calls attention to another locality—in the Wellington Land District —where two brothers hold 16 190 acres of freehold and 1475 acres of leasehold. In this case the firm referred to purchased only 696 acres from the Crown, and the Commissioner goes on to say that nearly t*he whole of this freehold was alienated from the Crown prior to 1888, some of it being purchased in 1883, so that there can bo no charge of maladministration against the Lands Department.'’ Tho Crown Lands Ranger saw tho editor to tho Mangawcka paper, which lias been referred to as having discovered some"' c{ these cases of aggregation, and tho ranger states in his report, that the editor mentioned several other cases, but ho (the editor) admitted that the areas mentioned were only sufficiently largo to make a comfortable living off, and that the holders were residing and working in a bona fido manner. He further stated (according to the ranger) that in the Mangawcka and Rakantona village settlement there is al tendency towards aggregation, but ho admitted that so far no one held too largo an area.

“It. is interesting to go back to tho article which led to the report I have quoted from being asked for. Here is ouo paragraph : ‘All through this district there are agents with their pockets lined with gold in order to tempt the small farmer to take ad-vantage of the Reform Govern'nient’s legislation to convert his leasehold into freehold, and so hand it over to tho man possessed of capital. On this )x>int Lite Commissioner says that only about 10 acres in tho vicinity of Mangawcka have, as £ct, been converted into freehold, under tho Land Act of 1912, and in another place ho says that ho attaches a schedule showing the holdings which have been converted to date from tho I.i.p. to freehold, under the act of last session, from which it will bo observed that there is no foundation at present for tho allegations made in the article published in the Man-' gaweka Settler.’ ” “These,” said tho Prime Minister, “are tho principal facts, and they speak for themselves. It has to be remembered that in many cases settlers were placed on sections of poor land, from which it was impossible to make a living, and as time went on such men were cither allowed to increase the area of their holdings by taking in other Crown lands, or, as soon as the conditions of tho Land Act permitted, many of them sold out to tho others who were satisfied to remain. This is, of course, a form of aggregation, but it is one that is inevitable under such circumstances.” “As to the general question, I have already said that the Government is against reaggregation, either of Crown land.s, privately -owned lands, or Native lands. So far as Crown lands are concerned, the provisions of tho Act of last session seem to have been effective, though in some places a difficulty with regard to financing has cropped up which will have to bo met, but I intend in the next Land Bill to ask Parliament to agree to proposals which I believe will make regggregation .exceedingly difficult, if not impossible.”