THE Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY. MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 1913. THE LAND BILL.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXV, Issue 10713, 15 September 1913, Page 4

THE Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY. MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 1913. THE LAND BILL.

The Auckland Star states that its attentiotn has been drawn to an interesting, not to say amusing feature of the new Land Bill, -which appears to have been'.overlooked hitherto. "In the section of the Bill dealing with the purohase of the freehold of Settlement Lands," says l our contemporary, "provision is made for oonvertL.I.P. land into freehold, by paying to. the*' State the difference between the original capital value of the land and its present valuation, after allowance has been made for improvements." This is manifestly a misstatement of fact. The difference between the original value and the present value, after allowance has been made for improvement, may be nil. Hence, if the statement of the Auckland Star be correct, the Government would be giving the lease-in-perpetu-ity settlers a free gift of their land. We need hardly sty that no such thing is contemplated under the Land Bill. What the Government proposes is that the L.I.P. settlers shall be permitted to acquire the freehold of their lands at the original value, "plus" any inorement that may at present exist after making a proper allowance for improvements, and an allowance for the tenant's unexpired interest in the lease. The Bill explains as follows:—•'The amo\mt by which the present capital yalue exceeds the original capital value being ascertained, an actuarial computation shall be made of the present value of such excess if payable at the expiration of the existing term of ■ the lease." The rate of interest is to be five per cent., and the clause concludes as follows.: —"The amount (if any) ascertained by such actuarial computation shall be added to the original capital value, and the result shall be the prioe." Although the Auckland paper's first statement is transparently incorrect, its conclusion that the interest of the State in what is termed the "unearned increment," after allowing interest at 5 per cent. on. the difference between original and present values, would be praptipajjy

nil, is perfectly accurate. Suppose the present valuation of a block of L.I.P. settlement land is £IOOO greater than the original valuation, what will lie Stat© receive from the tenant by way of compensation for the loss of the unearned increment, when the lease is converted, with, say, 970 j years to run ? The answer, of course,' is that there would be practically nothing left after allowing 5 per cent, compound interest for 970 years. In point of fact, the State has, no interest in a 999 years' lease. This was admitted by Sir Joseph Ward in a statement he made in the House some years back. We cannot understand why the Government should have placed such an absurd provision in the Bill as that to which we have referred. If it wasf put there to trap, land nationalises and others into the belief that the State would receive a portion of the unearned increment, it will give the Opposition an opportunity that should not have been offered for attacking the sincerity of the framers of the Bill. The Government, if it were thoroughly sincere in the matter, would have stated straight out that the holders of leases-in-perpetuity were entitled to convert their holdings on the payments of the original cost of the land. Why, may we ask, should they not be permitted to* do so? If the holder of a lease sells the goodwill of that lcase-nand hundreds of them have already done so—how muoh does the State receive in unearned-increment? Does it-re-ceive a penny? Of course it does not. If, then/the Government has no interest in the goodwillof a lease, which means the(improvements.plus unearned increment, what interest can it. possibly have in the land (When it cbmeV to. be •converted) beyond 2 , .the original value? It is' .that if the State were to demand a portion of the inorement, a ' large number of settlers would be unable to avail themselves of the opportunity of acquiring the freehold, for the very good reason that they have already paid, out the full, valine of the -, increment in;the gooawiU of their leases. If a return were fumished '■ It would be* ed that not more than five per cent, of the original lease-in-perpetuity selectors are in possession of their holdings. Ninety-five per cent, of the holders have alreidy appropriated the unearned inorement, and their successors have appropriated it every time the land is-transferred How absurd it would be to expect a man who) has paid £lO per acre for his lease, to contribute, to the State a further sum, over and above the original value, before he can acquire his freehold. We ask the Auckland Star, in view df the circumstances which it knows to exist, can it reasonably urge that the State should claim compensation frojrri those who are prepared to acquire ;the fee simple of land which is held oii-.a tenure thtt is advantageous to the individual and bad for the State?'