FARMERS’ OPINIONS

Wanganui Chronicle, 30 November 1948, Page 10

FARMERS’ OPINIONS

(The items below are supplied by Federated Farmers of New Zealand. The information given is official but any views expressed are those of the Federation and are not necessarily those of this newspaper.)

THE LAND SALES ACT

Continued representations are being made by Federate.. Farmers to the Government for amendments to existing land legislation providing for a more equitable deal for the landowner who is actively farming his property. The Federation continues to urge the Government to accept the proposition that the income earning capacity of a farm, or part of a farm, should be a major factor in determining its value. Where the severance of a portion of the farm is intended, the Federation has continually argued that the reduction in the income earning capacit: of the portion left to the owner should be taken into consideration. The Federation contended in its submissions that the Servicemen’s Settlement and Land Sales Act, in its day-to-day interpretation by the Land Sales Court, was probably not being administered just as the Government might have intended. It was, of course, possible that the Act as it stood could not, under present circumstances, be operated as the Government wished it to be.

One anomaly with which Federated Farmers was' most concerned, was the practice which had arisen of bringing into the calculation of value much factors as so-called “deficiencies” in the form of buildings and crops. Those arbitrarily arranged and calculated "deficiencies” were deducted from the value of the land under the formula provided by the Act, or at least operated by the administration of the Act. That, in the opinion of the Federation, was a vicious principle capable of being extended to deprive a farmer of most of the value of his farm. While such “deficiencies” were taken into account against' the farmer, tne Land Sales Court had recently instructed its Land Sales Committees that no increases in value should be made for the existence of ample or extra fodder crops. The Federation has argued that if such “deficiencies” are deducted then nrovision should be made in the Act for allowing an increased value to be granted where crops, buildings, etc. are in excess of normal requirement. It seems, to the Federation, quite inequitable to deduct a deficiency in one case and to ignore an adequate provision in another case.

The powers of compulsory acquisition provided under the Act brought about further anomalies. Few farmers, it is admitted, faced the danger of losing part of their present holdings.

The reversal of the Biblical injunction from "to him that hath shall be given” to the state of affairs under the Act providing that “from him that hath shall be taken away” might no doubt be a good demagogic catchcry. There were many cases in New Zealand where the taking away process could well be applied just as it was in the days of Seddon’s Liberal Government. The ideal of preventing land aggregation was one with which Federated Farmers had a certain amount of sympathy. In the case, however, of the acquisition of comparatively small well farmed areas, it was unfair, illogical and a penalty on good farming. Active farmers on reasonable holdings were, unfortur. .tely, the ones who were sufferin'- most under the compulsory powers of the Act. It was the policy of he Government to place returned men on developed properties and, in cases of small units so acquired, that meant in the main, taking so-called economic units from good farmers who had so devetoped their properties that the State cast envious eyes on part of those owners’ broad acres.

The net result was that the competent farmer, who had worked hard and developed his property, was placed in a worse position that the man who had sat back and not exerted himself to the same extent. That was the penalty placed on good farming. If a farmer had increased the carrying capacity of his place to the stage when it was capable of being cut into two economic units, he immediately ran the risk of having one unit taken from him. A neighbour on a similar property was not so threatened because he had failed to increase the fertility of his land as had the first farmer.

That demonst ated the unfairness of the present position. There could be no doubt that operation of the Act had* shaken the confidence of farmers in the stability of their tenures with consequent adverse repercussions on production.