GOVERNMENT AND THE LAND PROBLEM.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 156, 2 July 1907, Page 3

GOVERNMENT AND THE LAND PROBLEM.

ATTITUDE ON OPTIONAL PRIN-. CIPLE.

THE GRADUATED TAX. (By Telegraph.—Parliamentary Beporter.) WELLINGTON, this day. Something of the dreadful calm before the storm is in the atmosphere of the Parliamentary lobbies just at present. Although it is known that the land proposals will soon be placed before the House there is no marshalling of forces, either for or against. The combination of "option for the freenold" supporters, called the country party, which organised itself last session, and was said to have had great weight with the Ministry in securing a session's delay in pushing land legislation to a head, might well be expected to have an influence just now, but the country party actually does not exist. "'We would form up soon enough if there was need," remarked one of the leading country members from the north, but other Parliamentarians doubt whether this once formidable party could again unite upon a fighting basis if the option had to be fought, for every man who allied himself with Messrs. Rutherford, Jennings, Field, Major, R. McKenzie, etc. last session, would again toe that political line, but the land proposals will come before the House in such a manner that the question will not arise until two of the three bills have been disposed of. In the Land Bill introduced last IseEsion, the clause which provided that lands set aside as endowments should be let only on the renewable lease tenure was followed by this subclause, which had been inserted during the bill's passage through the Land Committee, "all other Crown lands may J>e selected on the occupation "with right of purchase system, or the renewable lease system, but not otherwise." The new Land Bill will contain this clause, so that so far as the bill dealing with land tenure is concerned, there -will probably be less opposition than was manifested towards the original measure, inasmuch as the area of land to which leasehold only shall apply is a quantity to be fixed by the Endowment Bill.

The fight therefore will rage around the third of the series of Land Bills, the freeholders seeking to reduce the area subject to leasehold conditions alone, and the leaseholders, on the other hand striving to keep under the control of th& State all the present Crown lands unalienated. So it is just possible that the two first section of the land proposals, viz., the graduated land tax and the tenure measures may go through without severe opposition. How far down the landowning scale will the Government attempt to impose the graduated tax? I am cqnvinced that the answer to this question is to be found in the original Land Bill. It will be remembered that the E. McNab at first proposed td*"Gmit large estates by the process of pruning them hack to a fifty-thousand unimproved value limit, and to stop further abnormal aggregation by preventing owners of more than £15,000 worth of land at unknproj-ed value, adding another acre to their possessions. At. £15,000 we find the first target at which the land reform, party aims, and it will be at this -point that the increased tax will become very appreciable, rising to prohibitive height after £50,000. No suggestion has been made that extra revenue is required out of the ordinary landowner, and it can therefore, -with confidence, be assumed that the tax i 9 not likely to touch those at present outside the pale, namely holders of lajid of a less value than £5000 unimproved value.

OPTION STUX IN THE BILL.

WELLINGTON. Monday. A few weeks ago the Hon. McNab stated to an interviewer in Stratford that the new Land Bill would practically comprise the original with the limitation and endowment proposals separated from the main bill. In conversation with a representative of the "Star" to-night, the Minister repeated his declaration/ He said the bill, when it came from Committee, showed that the option was taken away only from the land proposed to be set aside as endowments. "The option remained without limitation in the old and will be in the new bill," he said, "it has only been blind opposition that has refused to see it all along. I have asserted emphatically reading it from the bill, and stating it to interviewers again and again."

'•This is not then," the reporter asked, "a change of the terms of the bill at the present time?"

"No, certainly not," replied Mr McNab; "take last year's bill, and without addition or subtraction separate the endowment proposals from the rest of the bill, and you have in the Land Bill the option untouched. Of course, in regard to what is set aside as an endowment, there is no option."

WHAT WILL MR. MASSEY DO ?

Temporarily reinforced by a contingent of Liberal freeholders, the Opposition is a strong element to be reasoned with this session. It would be very interesting to know Mr Massey's plan of campaign; but, like a wise general, he does not give away the exact nature of his tactic 3. However, his natural reticence does not prevent members discussing the situation and coming to a conclusion, and the general opinion is that mild stone-walling will commence as soon as the Land Bill comes before the House. The Leader of the Opposition will probably urge that an appeal to the constituencies should precede any attempt to settle the land problem on the lines proposed by the Government. If he wishes to run a stone-wall movement he has plenty of material for a deadly exhibition of that class of parliamentary obstruction.

Considerable interest is being taken in the caucus of the Government party on Wednesday, which is expected to have an important bearing on the Government's land policy.

Mr Remington has brought up a proposal on the much-debated question of the terms upon which lease in perpetuity holders may acquire the freehold, Mr Remington intends bringing forward a proposal which would, if adopted, split the difference between the demand for freehold at the original valuation, and the other demand that freehold should only be granted upon the basis of the present valuation. If the new bill does not provide for this Mr Remington will move an amendment to the following effect:—'*lf a lease in perpetuity holder, -who surrenders his lease, does not desire to ob-. tain a renewable lease, the fee simple of f iba lmi sonjjpsea in tig aujugiikod

lease or license shall be offered to the licensee at an advance of fifty per cent on the original value named in the lease or license, or, if requested by the licensee, put up for sale by public auction, burdened with the value of the improvements ascertained by valuation."