LAND OCCUPATION

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 19843, 18 May 1927, Page 8

LAND OCCUPATION

BOGEY OF LARGE AREAS MOSTLY ON THE MOUNTAIN TOPS PREMIER ANSWERS MR HOLLAND [Per Press Association.] DARGAVILLE, May 17. In the course of his speech at Dargaville on Afonday night, the Prime Minister referred to certain statements in regard to land occupation which have been made by the leader of the Opposition (Air H. E. Holland) in recent speeches made by the latter. The Leader of the Opposition, said Afr Coates, in a series of recent speeches, had been indulging at the expense of the Government in certain misleading statements'on the land question, but many of his deductions were fallacious. He found fault with the Government because there were still a number of large areas of land held by a few individuals, and said that, given the opportunity, the Labour Party would, by an imposition of a graduated Land tax, burst these large holdings for closer settlement. Large Areas, Small Values. Air Holland was here confusing value with area. Everyone knew that the very large holdings were not the valuable holdings. Alost of them consisted of hilly, rough, back-country, inaccessible and not capable of being economically cut up into much smaller areas, 'faking all the occupied holdings, the relative characters of the land held in large areas would be seen from their sheep-carrying capacity. The average per acre for all holdings up to aud including 500 acres was 0.77 sheep per acre; for holdings over 5000 acres it was 0.29 sheep per acre, while for holdings over 20,000 acres it was only to 0.15 sheep per acre. This clearly indicated the value of the land held in large blocks and no graduated tax would have any affect on them whatever. A Record that Speaks. He would point out that, during the Reform Government’s term of office, the area in large holdings had been reduced, while the number of small holdings had been largely increased.

The total area in blocks over 5000 acres decreased by 327,901 acres, although the number of those holdings increased by 64, clearly proving further sub-division within that group itself. The class of holdings, however, indicating the process of closer settlement was the group from 51 to 500 acres. During the same period, both the numbers of such holdings and the total area of the group largely increased, the former 5889, and the latter by 885,245 acres. The group of holdings held in blocks from 501 to 100 acres also showed an increase of 673 in number and 508,352 acres in total area. Area and Production. The best test as to the economical occupation of land was its productive capacity. Some land produced best in small areas, while other classes could only bw worked profitably in large areas. Sections cut too small had, in the past, had to be joined up with others to enable one family to make a living. The old Ballance settlement near Pahiatua was a case in point. Putting sections of that kind together to enable a settler to make a living Air Holland called aggregation. If it could bo further shown that the value of production per acre had increased, he thought this should be accepted as evidence that the Government’s administration has been in the best interests of the country. she greater the production, the better for everyone—producer and consumer. Production Increased. Taking the latest year, 1910-11, prior to the Reform Government taking office, for which figures were available, the average value of agricultural, pastoral, and dairying production was 15s 2d per acre, compared with an average production per acre in 1924-25 of 33s lid. This seemed a very great increase, but it would be wrong to claim that the production per acre of the Dominion had increased to that extent. There had been a world war in the interval and the prices of our products had soared up to high levels and, unfortunately fur many people, fallen back again.

In order, therefore, to get a true comparison of the “volume” of production, as distinct from the ‘ ‘ value ’ ’ of. production, it was necessary to eliminate the effect of price variations from the comparison. We must reduce each year’s figures to the same price level, namely that of 1909-13. When this was done, the figures were:—For 1910-11, 14s lid per acre, and for 1924-26, 19s 5d per acre, or an increase of no less than 30 per cent., approximately in the production per acre of the occupied lands of the Dominion. Surely there could not have been much wrong with the Government’s treatment of the former, or, of the land position, when progress like that had taken place! As a matter of fact, this increased production pci acre had been very largely due to one of the Government’s special aims, namely the fostering and developing of the dairying industry un the small holding basis. Mr Holland Confused Again. Air Holland further stated that 56 persons owned over 42 million acres. He was here confusing “ownership” with “occupation,” two very different things. His figures were taken from the statistics of “occupied” holdings and the next table showed that less than half of the area was occupied by the freehold owners. No less than 19 million acres of the area were represented by Crown leasehold, covering, of course, all the big grazing runs among the mountains in the South Island, some of which consisted of both freehold and leasehold together. The total area mentioned by Air Holland as being held by these 56 occupiers was over 42 million acres, but of this Jess than half a million acres were freehold. Over 42 million acres were represented by the Crown, public bodies, and Afaori leasehold.

Two of the largest of these holdings carried one sheep to two acres and two sheep to 14 acres, respectively. These were typical of such large holdings and any unbiassed persoh would readily recognise that these large holdings were unsuitable for cutting up for closer settlement.