page break

It's Time! To Nationalise all Land

Econopolis or Humanopolis?

A question for New Zealand's cities and rural areas in the light of the world-wide movement for public ownership of land.

New Zealand is continuing to lose control of its land and can do nothing about it.

The decision of the Chief Justice last week against the Minister of Finance but in favour of the American/Japanese interests which own 2591 acres near Lake Te Anau, proves this without a doubt.

Mr Rowling had previously refused to allow the Mitsubishi Rayon Corporation to take part in the expansion of the American owned Te Anau tourist resort. But the Chief Justice, Sir Richard Wild, ruled that even though the government wanted the land to revert to NZ ownership under present legislation there was no way to bring this about. The resort promoters could continue with their development of a golf course in that area. Once again New Zealand land laws appear in need of a major overhaul.

As shown by the court battle waged by the overseas resort developers, land is purely a commodity of commerce. If they are on to a good thing they stick with it no matter what the wishes of the host nation.

Authors writing about land economics, such as Reismann and Lampard, declare that land use is primarily determined by commercial factors. And as a consequence the painful experience of over a century has ".....made it abundantly clear that market forces, left to their own devices, fail utterly to produce a humane environment." That's how the British author of the famous work 'Traffic in the Towns', Colin Buchanan, puts it.

In New Zealand the facts of the purely commercial basis for land use are now painfully apparent.

On top of these factors which lead to inequitable situations throughout New Zealand, we have Maori dissatisfaction over the alienation and abuse of their land, as well as the concern at foreign ownership of our land and resources.

As to a remedy for these disorders affecting many people, if not all, in NZ, the best is the public ownership of land. No doubt, with this suggestion many people will automatically throw up their hands in horror. However, we have now had some months to consider the idea of land nationalization most recently put forward by Government MP for Wanganui, Russell Marshall. Immediately after his statement there was a flurry of statements condemning this proposal

The Opposition MP Mr McCready labelled Mr Marshall 'the commissar of collective farming in New Zealand."

Mr Minogue, Mayor of [unclear: Hamiton], suggested that having public ownership of land was like "using a sledge-hammer to crack a nut"

Mr Muldoon tied Russell Marshall's suggestion to the dragon he has been blindly fighting for several months—the superannuation scheme. With the money gained from the scheme, he said, land could be bought up on a massive scale.

As could be expected the newspapers kept debate on land nationalisation to a minimum. The Listener published a couple of articles on the topic (for and against), and the Sunday Times ran one article, but a good one. And so the issue lies dormant here in NZ.

On the international scene however, the public ownership of land is a matter either of lively discussion or actual practice.

In 1973 the American Institute of Architects called for national commitment to 'a major land acquisition policy to guard development in or around urban centre". Land, they said, had to be treated as public rather than private, particularly land which lies in the path of urban growth or is for the benefit of the community. This is radical stuff coming from Americans. However, they have witnessed American urban renewal programmes undertaken by major private corporations. These have made a packet by clearing slums, banishing the poor to low-grade housing in outer areas while reselling the urban land to rich city sophisticates.

In Sweden public ownership of land is a matter of, practice Land has come to be regarded as a community resource and not as a vehicle for private gain. There has been large scale acquisition of land, well in advance of peed. The State now owns all housing land, it has put a ceiling on house size irrespective of the householders' status. The municipalities hold discretionary powers as to land use. So overall community interests dominate rather than narrow economic considerations of private interests In Sweden, whole communities can be created out of say, two hundred households made up of students, families, single people, commune dwellers and pensioners. With this control over land use the bungalow box and urban sprawl and inner city jungle—so profitable to the developer—gives way to a humane city environment where deep community and individual needs are met.

In Germany, whole-ranging legislation has come down over the last two years specifically aimed at the land-dealer/Speculator

The Federal Government in Bonn, which has a Town Planning Minister (a suitable addition to NZ cabinet ranks?) justifies its stern legislation when it says that if a "utilization conflict" should arise when a piece of land is up for sale, the supermarket usually makes the running against the children's playground and the office building against the cafe. The centres of the towns, Bonn says, are in danger of losing all their inhabitants, while scenically attractive areas are being built on. On top of the shortage of reasonably priced housing in built-up areas one finds deliberate destruction of housing by landlords who can make more money by renting business premises. All of which occurs in NZ as well

The German property law reformers, for support, refer back even to Pope Paul's encyclical "Populorum Progressio", which states: "The right of property must never be used to the detriment of the general good."

The Town Planning Minister in Bonn, Hans Vogel, states: "Passive capitulation to the un-co-ordinated and mostly profit-oriented individual interests of a large variety of investors ends in chaotic urban structures in inhospitable towns."

Mr Walding, Minister of the Environment, last month in a public address, also called for radical changes in the planning and designing for cities if people wanted to retain a stable, happy environment around them. He did not mention public ownership of land. But in his address he attacked what public land ownership would overcome—uncontrolled industrialisation, "daytime desert suburbs" and "the night-time deserted city centres".

The Minister said: "What we need to do now is to have firmer control on the rate and direction of city growth". He continued: "We can learn to grow with grace instead of scrambling relentlessly over each other in pursuit of profits. We can grow without sprawling in chaos to the outskirts of the cities. The price of neglect here will be ultimate disaster."

New Zealand land laws very page break definitely are in need of a major examination and overhaul.

A Wellington City Councillor, Dr W.A. McKean, who recently returned after five months overseas said what most interested him overseas was the change in land acquisition laws in Britain.

Dr McKean, senior lecturer in law at Victoria University, said Britain had now adopted the Swedish system regarding land acquisition. The local council bought up land at the present time at existing use-value for future development. This, he said, was in contrast to the NZ system where if land which was, for example, rural and was wanted by the council as industrial A, would have to be paid for at the industrial A price.

In Britain the community benefited by the system and not the landowner. The council was then, if it chose, able to sell or lease the land to its citizens for housing at a lower price.

Already one candidate for the Wellington City Council has called for the land in the central business area to be acquired and administered by the City Council to prevent the "uncoordinated scramble inherent in private or corporate ownership of land". The demand was also made for the acquisition of land presently zoned rural but bordering residential areas, as a safeguard 06 the community against speculators.

Dr McKean, as a member of the council's Town Planning Committee, feels the committee cannot act properly without a master plan.

"If the council could have more control over land and what to do with it, we could make the city more attractive," he said. "The key is control of land by social ownership".

With social ownership greater public participation would be possible No more schemes dreamed up in the isolation of the boardroom of speculating land developers or insurance companies. The public could be involved in schemes from the very beginning. In this way the average citizen can make a case for what he/she feels should be the character of our urban development.

When it comes to small scale property owners we can learn from the German land reforms. Those plans propose that property holders should be accorded a "utilization right" by the community. The property holder could modify this property. However, the community would retain the "right of disposal", the decision as to how the property should be used. There would then be no need to wage war to make land developers stay out of suburban villages.

Town Planning Minister Vogel in Bonn has made another statement most apt for the NZ situation:

"The redrafting of the law on property ownership will become a touchstone of our society's readiness and capacity for reform."

Russell Marshall is attempting to make New Zealanders ready for the land reform so drastically needed.

One of his supporters is the Bank of New Zealand's chief economist Mr L.C. Bayliss. Mr Bayliss says that there is a basic conflict between land ownership and the community's needs. Public ownership of land was necessary to achieve a significant improvement in the quality of

Another supporter is also a Labour MP, Dr Rodgers He, however, is not convinced that full public ownership was the answer to land misuse and speculation. Dr Rodgers wants to see an investigation into the present land ownership system. So we refer again to the international scene.

Australia recently conducted a Federal Commission of Inquiry into land tenures The Chairman, Mr Justice Else-Mitchell, came to the conclusion ('The Australian' July 20, 1974, p. 5) that: "Unrestricted land ownership is in-compatible with the public interest in Australia's complex society."

The view of the commission was that a national land policy was needed rather than new controls. Existing controls had failed to prevent the middle-men (speculators) reaping huge windfall profits and dealing in land as though it were a lottery.

Present controls provided opportunities for developers to get favourable planning decisions from local authorities. The controls also failed to protect environment and preserve historical buildings. From the time some planning officer defines a zone, or marks a colour on a draft scheme map—no matter how provisional—an incentive for speculation is created.

The commission wanted a system where the use value of the land was significant, not its potential for development. So the Public Authority should acquire land development rights to avoid premature development; windfall profits going to land dealers through rezoning; compensating out of public funds those who suffered from development; inflated land prices and high service cost, as profits would go into local government or public revenue. Land prices would fall as a consequence of these moves.

The most significant conclusion of the commission is that leasehold tenures should be introduced along with the local body development rights.

Around the world there is the definite but responsible move away from the private property rights which have produced such ugliness and distress in the structures and landscape of most cities and nations.

NZ is very tardy and the government culpably negligent therefore, in delaying to implement land reform or at least initiate a thorough examination of the present land ownership system.

The scheme Russell Marshall wants NZ to study entails free-holders becoming leaseholders overnight with all titles vested in the Crown. Compensation could but need not, be given, rather a 99 year lease would be held, rent free. After the rent-free lease expired the land would be available for a new lease, at a market rental.

The government could end the lease with reasonable notice if the use or user of the government needed the land for development. The government already has this right under the Public Works Act. This right to end the lease if the use or user of the land changes would ensure that no one made a fortune from a decision of a local planning authority. This would also eliminate the possibility of corruption.

At the end of the 99 year period the state would own and manage the land on annual or longer leasehold.

Actual control of the land would be by either a new body such as a "public land management authority" or the local body reorganised to cope with the extra work. A further possibility is for control to be with a regional planning authority.

How would nationalisation affect thousands of ordinary suburban homeowners?

The only visible change would be that the land owner would no longer have a piece of paper saying that he/she owned the land. He/ she would still own the house on that land, of course. The piece of paper now held would be a lease, stipulating no rent payments for 99 years. At the end of that period the leaseholder takes up a new lease but at the market rent.

Already many homes in NZ are built on leasehold land. In Auckland the Anglican Church owns thousands of acres and leases them out to home-owners. In Wellington the Hospital Board leases out hundreds of sections.

When a leaseholder wanted to move he/she would sell the house and buy a new one in another area just as he/she does now. The land management authority would approve the change in leaseholder as long as there was not going to be a change in the use of land—from residential to commercial, from rural to residential, etc.

The benefit to town planning under this scheme would obviously be substantial.

Also Maori land rights would be safeguarded by special arrangements in the scheme. Maoris would then need not fear alienation of their land or change of use because strict control over it would be possible.

The argument that farmers would not work their farms energetically under a scheme of public ownership of the land is unrealistic. For the farmer his income will still be determined by his production so his pace will not slacken. Managers and farmers already leasing land are seen to farm just as efficiently as their neighbours who own farms.

New Zealand's acceptance of a system of public ownership of land would enable land use to be more closely regulated and more clearly defined. This is the essential beauty of the scheme.

With the public ownership of land Mr Rowling could safeguard the 2000 acres near Lake Te Anau from misuse by foreign interests and New Zealanders would be aided since the whole squalid business of land profiteering could be wiped out. The humanity vacuum of our cities would also be eased through the ending of the urban-profit scramble.

Moreover, the emotional link that Maoris have with their land could be carried over into the world of the Pakeha. Everyone would then have an abiding concern for "our land".

by Brendan Smith