THE FREEHOLD.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 867, 13 July 1910, Page 3

THE FREEHOLD.

FARMERS' DEMAND. THE UNION'S MAIN PLANK. The demand for the freehold occupied first place among the subjects set down for discussion at the Dominion Conference of the Farmers' Union yesterday. Remits on the question had been received from several provinces, but the conference agreed to regard them as all summed up in the following motion, which was moved by Mr. W. J. Birch (Marten):—

1 That the conference reiterates , tho demand that tho Land Act be so amended that planks 3 and 8 of tho union's platform shall be acted upon, and that no legislation will be. satisfactory to tho Fanners' Union that does not embody these provisions. Planks .3 and 8, alluded to above, are as follow:— ; That all holders of lease-in-pcr-petuity or perpetual leases, or small grazing runs have tho right to purchase the freehold at any time after tho improvement conditions have been complied with, either by immediate casli payment or payment extending over an indefinite time, reduction of rent to bo made in proportion'to such payments. No transfer' to be registered unless such transfer has attached a declaration by the •purchaser in terms of the Land Act and Land for Settlement Act. That Crown tenants on tho lease-in-porpetuity tenure have tho right to acquire the freehold of their holding on payment by the lessee . of the original value and the payment of the difference between the 4 per cent, now charged on the lease-iii-perpetuity and the 5 per cent, charged to tenants with the right to purchase. .The mover said that tho freehold was the principal feature of the union's policy. The terms suggested by the union were fair, because in a leasehold of 999' years the equity of redemption . was practically, nil. It had been a subject of recent comment that largo sums were being paid for the increment values of Crown. leases, but he contended that, the leaseholder had as much right to his increment value as the freeholder.

The Main Plank. Mr. F. F. 1-lockly (Hunterville) said the freehold was the most important and most successful plank ,6f the union's platform. ! The Government had at one time shut the door and put its back to it, but now the door was ajar. They now wanted the Government to accept the Fanners' Union land policy as its own. .There had never been in any Legislature a more scandalous proposal than that to deprive,the Crown tenants of all the unimproved value of their land. The leaseholder had as much right to the unimproved value as the freeholder. ' Major Lusk (To Kuiti) said they must show not only that they desired this concession, but demanded it, and would light until they got it. Mr. G. H. Stewart (Otago president) said that if applied only to the 099 years' lease the motion was -.right, but the Auckland branch appeared to have resolved that the principle of the "option of acquiring the freehold . should bo applied to all Crown lands. This would include the new short-dated leases,. and if they asked for the option'of the freehold fn this connection on the same terms they were asking for something for nothing. A Friend of the Leasehold.

Mr. J. E..Lano (Hawke's Bay) spoke of the success of the land for settlements policy in Hawke's Bay. The lease-in-perpetuity was the most generous of tenures, and' ho was sorry to see it thrown into the political melting pot. Such a contract should bo held.sacred. The farmers should have waited for the Government to come to them with a request for- variation of the terms. The amount of -goodwill being paid on leasc-in-perpetuity sections in.Hawke's Bay seemed to call for- a word of warning. It had reached £30 per acre on. the, Tomoana Estate and' £10 per acre oil the Hatuma. Estate. Even tho 10 per cent, rebate for prompt payment of rent was being capitalised and sold.. Tho remissions of rent which tenants could obtain under special circumstances should be confined to exceptional conditions, and he did not think it was originally intended that such remissions should be granted to tenants who 4iad become such by paying goodwill to previous tenants'. Ho fully admitted that if the freehold were granted it must bo at the original value, because the present tenants had, in many cases, paid tho previous lessees the difference between tho value of to-day and the original value. (Hear, hear.) But he'thought tho holders had a very good thing and he 'was not sure that it was wiso to drag the matter into politics.

Freehold and Limitations. Mr. Eustace Lano , (Hawke's Bay) said all Crown leasehold tenures should have the right of purchase attached to them, and the freehold should bo subject to limitation. The right of purchase should never expire. . He was strongly against the graduated laud tax, which was an absolutely confiscatory tax and bad for tho people as a whole. It caused the land to be thrown open not to the people.as a.whole, but to a little clique that happened to know that a niaii wished to sell.

Mr. J. M'Queen (Invercargill). said the motion was all that was required. He thought the option ,of purchase should be limited to about 10 years, in view of the. intention that the Government sliould use the money for acquiring other lands for settlement.

Values Not. Always Rising. Mr. H. A. Nevins (Temii) said land did not always go up. He quoted an instance of certain tenants in Ireland who were granted a reduction of- rent after their land had been inspected, although tho prices of produce had improved. The president (Mr. <T. G. Wilson) said young Now Zealanders who were growing uj) in the towns were being told that the leasehold tenure was the best. Tho union must therefore put its views heforo the people. The instance from Ireland, given by the, last speaker, showed that the State suffered from tho leasehold tenure. It was just as necessary that tho working men in. tho towns should have tho freehold as that the farmer should. The Hon. Mr. Millar, a pronounced leaseholder, , had found that. ho must give the workmen tho freehold of their houses. The farmers would be very phased to sco tho toini workers benefited in this way. Mr. J. Talbot (South Canterbury president) also supported tho motion. He ridiculed the fear of aggregation. The State had just as good a hold on the freehold as on the leasehold. • The State could tax the freehold and could prevent aggregation. Mr. 0. F. -Clothier (Hawarden) said the experience of Cheviot showed that the Government had done much good by promoting sub-division', hut the system required to ho perfected by adding tho right to acquire the freehold. Mr. A. Sehmitt (Clcvedon) said tho farmers of the Auckland province were freehold to the backbone.. Covcrnmsnt Looking for a Policy, Mr. 11. Kvans (Canterbury) said tho Government was apparently looking for a land policy. The union should raise its voice and say that the people should

have the freehold if they wanted it. Tho prosperity of Taranaki was evidence of tho superiority of tho freehold, because most of tho land there was taken up oh the deferred-payment system. Cheviot was also a strong evidence of the advantages of freehold because the men who had stayed there wero the men who had the freehold.

Mr. .Birch, in replying on tho' debate, insisted that the union should not only ask for the right of purchase, but should also propose terms. Otherwise terms on which no real business could bo done might lie olfcred. Alluding to the remarks of Mr. J. Lane, he.said that when a holding had greatly increased in value it was much to tho advantage of the-State, as well as the lessee, that the freehold should be granted, and that the holder (whose interest in the land had grown to exceed by far-that of the State) should thus bo placed in the same position as others in regard to taxation. The motion was carried on the voices.