17

C—4.

J. HAT

subdivide a section. If the Board found that a section is too small to provide a man with a living and an adjoining section is unoccupied, I think the Board should have power to subdivide that section without having to issue a new sale-plan and open it in the ordinary way. 58. You mean to take a piece off an adjacent vacant section and add it to the man's holding? —Yes. 59. Might you not spoil the adjacent section?— Well, the Board would exercise its judgment in the right direction. I think that is a very desirable power to give the Board without making it necessary to refer to the Head Office. It would facilitate settlement, because sometimes there is considerable delay when you have to get new sale-plans from Wellington. I think that is unnecessary when the local office can get out such a plan by amending the original. 60. But if the Board in its discretion subdivided a section for the purpose of adding to a man's farm there would be no need to issue these plans, because if you advertise them the land would be open to anybody?—l was referring more particularly to a section that has been forfeited. We could advertise for thirty days, and alter the original sale-plans to suit requirements. I do not think there would be the usual delays in dealing with these matters. I think that is a necessary discretionary power to give Land Boards. 61. Would you allow a man who has improved his section very much, and who is gradually becoming old, and wishing to cut off a bit to place his son on, to do so ?—I think that might be allowed. 62. I presume you would not allow a man to subdivide and become a sort of middleman between the Crown and the tenants ?—Oh, no. 63. Supposing a man finds he has more land than he can profitably work, and he wishes to cut off 100 acres, and he says, u I know a man who will take these 100 acres up ": would you allow that ?—Yes. 64. But in respect to the piece that is cut off, you would give a special lease direct from the Crown? —Yes; I think they should be all Crown tenants. There should be no subtenants. 65. Can you tell us how much land in this district is under pastoral tenure ? —We have ninetysix tenants, embracing an area of 1,473,567 acres. The total annual rent is £3,714 19s. 66. What is about the average duration of these leases ?— Fourteen years is the usual term, but in the higher and rougher country we are now giving twenty-one-years leases. 67. Is the holder entitled to certain improvements at the end of the lease ?—Yes. If the rent is £50 or over, he is only entitled by law to three times the rent for improvements. If it is under £50, he is entitled to only five times the rent for improvements. That is all the law allows, no matter what improvements may have been effected; there is no buying of land now allowed. There is the homestead-site that cannot be resumed during the currency of the lease, but the holders are not allowed to make it private property. I would now like to lay before the Commission the various suggestions that this Land Board has made from time to time. The first is in regard to pastoral licenses under the Land Acts of 1885 and 1892 —that provision be made giving Land Boards discretionary power to allow licensees to cultivate for the purpose of growing winter feed for stock. Our reason for suggesting this is that a licensee having no other land, unless he has this right he is unable to make full use of his run to its greatest advantage all the year round. Then, in regard to valuation for improvements—that provision be made allowing licensees fair valuation for all improvements on any pastoral run necessary for the working thereof. Our reason is that the valuations being based on rental as at present do not, as a rule, cover the value of fencing alone in many cases, much less the buildings such as dwellings, wool-shed, &c. Then, in regard to homestead-areas on pastoral runs under 5,000 acres —that section 211 of " The Land Act, 1892," be amended so that a homestead-area not exceeding 100 acres be allowed on runs under 5,000 acres in extent. Our reason is that, as there is no provision for any homestead-area on runs under 5,000 acres, it seems desirable and reasonable that such protection should be given when required. We think the same provision should be made in connection with a run of under 5,000 acres as for a run of over 5,000 acres. Then, as to the payment of arrears of rates on forfeited holdings—that section 124 of " The Land Act, 1892," be amended so that Land Boards shall be liable to pay rates to local bodies only when the amount received for improvements on a forfeited holding is in excess of arrears of rent and other charges due to the Crown, and that the Land Boards be not held liable during the currency pf any lease or license. Our reason is that section 124 does not work well, and is practically inoperative except when there are improvements upon the forfeited section. You see, at present we are forced to forfeit a section if the county rates are not paid. Then, as to titles for cash lands under Part 111. of " The Land Act, 1892," when the improvement conditions are not complied with —that section 148 does not define what action shall be taken or how the title shall be dealt with when a purchaser fails to make the required improvements within the seven years mentioned in the section. Our reason is that, on account of difficulty of access and other causes, some purchasers were unable to make the required improvements, and others were not aware of the time-limit, as it is not mentioned in the certificate of occupation issued under the Act. If the improvements are not effected within seven years on cash lands there is no provision made for issuing a title at all. We have a number in this district in that condition. We suggest that in the case of defaulters up to the present time the period within which improvements may be made should be extended. Then, as to grazing licenses under section 116 of " The Land Act, 1892 " —that, as in many cases it is necessary and desirable that the land should be broken up and cultivated so as to eradicate weeds, &c., and obtain pasture, section 116 be amended, giving Land Boards a discretionary power to allow cultivation under temporary licenses granted under this section. I think that would be a good thing, because at the present time the adjoining owner to these little bits of land cannot eradicate these weeds unless he is allowed to cultivate and take more than two crops off. Then, in regard to section 114 of " The Land Act, 1892," it reads as follows: — " Any selector of less than six hundred and forty acres of land under Part 111. of this Act, or under the provisions oi any former Act relating to occupation of land on similar tenure, may apply

3—C. 4.