CROWN LEASEHOLDS.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XLVI, Issue 14984, 11 August 1919, Page 9

CROWN LEASEHOLDS.

MINISTERS REPLY

The following resolution which was carried at the last meeting of the local branch of the Farmers' Union, was' forwarded to the Hon. D. H. Guthrie : — "That the Farmers' Union protests most strongly against the action of the Government m pressing the Land Laws' Amendment Act, 1918, which made operative the Land Act of 1912, thereby breaking the contract entered into between the small grazing run-holders under the 1892 Act and the Crown, such action being a gross breach of faith and seriously affects the security of every Crown . leasehold throughout the Dominion." The Minister replied as follows : "I have carefully considered the resolution contained m your letter of July 7th as it appeared to the Government prior to the passing of the legislation of last session. The provisions of the Land Act, 1892 (repeated m section 218 of the Land Act, 1908), with respect -to renewals of small grazing run leases ; were that before the termination of the current lease should be offered to the existing lessee at a rent based, upon a valuation to be made by an appraiser appointed by the Land Board.. After the making of the valuation the lessee was required to elect" whether he would accept a fresh lease for a term of 21 years at an annual rental equal to not less than 2i per cent, of the value of the fee simple as fixed by valuation, loss the value of improvements. In the 'event of his not agreeing to the aforesaid valuation the rent to be paid was to be determined by arbitration. This was taken to mean "that the new- rental was still to be not less than 2£ per cent., but might, be more, whereas the Court of Appeal and the Privy Council thought that 'equal to not less than 2} per cent.' meant 'equal to 2£ per cent.' Seclion 28 of the Land Laws Amendment Act. 1912, further provides that on the expiry, of a lease of a small grazing run it may be sub-divided and disposed of m two or more allotments by way of lease for 21 years, with perpetual right of renewal for similar terms, the former lessee having the right' to a lease of such one of the new allotments as -he elects, the rent to be as fixed m the case of a renewable lease. Section 6of the Land Laws Amendment Act, 1918, remedied what was considered to be an andraaly, and provided that the Land" Board should have the right to determine the proportion which the annual rent of the new lease should bear to the unimproved value, being m no case less than 2^ per [cent., but it might be more if the circumstances of the case justified it. It is considered that the law as it now, stands sets out plainly what was considered to be the case, and is perfectly fair not only to the tenant but also to theState. If the Privy Council's 'decision was allowed tp remain as law it. would mean that the holder of a run belonging to the State could have a lease for ever at what would probably be a nominal rental on the periodically ascertained value of the land. I have endeavored to explain the reasons that actuated the Government m passing this legislation, and would particularly refer you to the remarks of the Hon.' Sir Francis Bell, Attorney General, when moving the second • readings of the Land Laws Amendment. Bill of last session ill the Legislative • Council, which appear on pages 1047/ and 1049 of Hansard, m its issue of December 10th last. These remarks fully explain the opinion of the Government, and I do not see my way to depart therefrom." .1