THE LAND BILL.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1573, 17 October 1912, Page 6

THE LAND BILL.

SECOND READING DEBATE. .THE FREEHOLD MANDATE. PRIME MINISTER'S OPENING SPEECH. The Hen. ,W. V. MASSEY (Minister for Lands) rose to move the second raiding of the Land Laws Amendment Bill at 8.50-p.m. He. said that as there .were a great 'many details to discuss, it' would not be necessary for him, or perhaps for other members, to discuss at any length the mail) principle contained in the Bill. The question of,leasehold versus freehold had been fully uiecussed, and at the last general election the people of the country had elected a huge majority of members wlio favoured the freehold principle. their duty now to give effect to the principle. The present Bill contained only a part" of the policy of the Government. There would be another Lund Bill as bulky I as this next session He was well awnre that if he -hiui overloaded this. Bill thero would have been very little chance of passing it this session. The land policy ot I he Government had been very fully setfort.h. Tho people of the country-had come to tho conclusion that people who occupied leaseholds should have an opportunity of acquirinj; the freehold. Mr. Russell: They won't buy. it on your terms. Mr. Massey: Then will the lion, gentleman support the proposals in the Bill. Mr. Russell: You will tee. The Lease in Perpetuity. Mr. Massey wont on to say that every day on which tho lease-in-perpetuity. eystem was in operation meant a loss to the State. Mr. Russell: Your own figures contradict that. Mr. Massey. I make the statement and aek- the lion, gentleman to contradict it if he can. Ho continued that allowing for rebates of rant, only about 3J per cent. was received on the money sunk in settlement lends. For money Jwrrowed 1 per cent, intercut had to bo paid. The Government . had authority .to raise JJ500.000 per annum for the purchase of kinds for settlement. Money was raised .in England for this purpose, and the result was that we were parting with our knde to outsiders. This system must be ended. The centvil principle of tho Bill was subdivision. Irfirge powers were conferred on tho Minister for Lands, but these powers were necossary if the lands of t.ho country wero to lie properly administered. Native Lands. Tho most important proposal in the Bill was that which empowered Native owners with surplus lands to corno (ilonj to the Minister for.Lands and nsk him to take these lands over. In the past .N'nlivp. land had been iicnuired in somo cases at ono quarter of its value. The result hud .been to breed distrust in the, Natives, ant

to make them unwilling to part with their lands. This Hill would remedy the matter. Natives would now get fair market value for their hind as fixed by <tli« terms U> scalers. 11. might Inke yours to bring (lie system fully into operation, but he believed Hint they hiul here the embryo of the settlement of the Native land question. He was not vain enough to imagine that this Bill or even the Bill of next year would settle the whole land question," but (he Bill represented the heuii'liing of a comprehensive scheme. Hβ had begun with the settlement of tlio ffum lands in the far north.

An Opposition member: Where is their market?

Mr. Masse?: In Britain or possibly in .South America. The Bill provided for .the cutting up of large eslate?. He believed that one of its effects would be to bring back to tin's country many young New Zenlanders who bad left this country because they could not get land on which to settle in the land of their birth. Mr. Massey quoted from the "Sydney Morning Herald," a paragraph in which it was stated that every steamer brought largo numbers of young New Zealand farmers to Australia and that in time the .Commonwealth might gain not hundreds, but thousands of farmers of the very best class.. A Question Above Party, • He considered it tho most important duty of the Minister for Lands to increase the number of producers and so increase tho volume of exports. This could only be done by granting every possible facility and assistance to settlers. He asked members to treat the land question as one above party. Mr. Ilanaji: You made it a partv ouestion at tho elections. "■ '. , Mr. Massey: It was certainly a plank in our policy if that is making"it a party question. The administration of our land system, he continued, had been during recent, years very unsatisfactory. Hundreds of settlers had applied to him for remissions of rent, saying that conditions were so different from what they had beea led to espect that they could not make ends meet. During the vear which ended on Septembr 30, 1312," 203 settlers on Crown lands and 21. on settlement land applied for remissions of rent. Land Lying /die. . Mr. Massey stated that the following areas of settlement lands were lying unoccupied on September 30.. 1912, in the districts named:—Auckland, 201 sections, 12,235 acres; Taranaki, IS -sections, 2-i acres; Wellington, 1021 sections, 1<5116 acres; Nelson, 1641 acres; Marlborough, 23 sections, .7 acres; Canterbury, 85 sections, 5161 acres; Ota?o, 14 sections, 52 acres; Soiithland, 1 section, 69 acres. Grand total, 1365 sections, 21,317 acres. Mr. Buddo interjected that many of these areas were unallotted village settlements. Mr. Massey said that during the last twelve months there had been 157 forfeitures in the case of Crown land settlements and 24 in the case of settlement lands,' a total of 181 forfeitures. Surrenders for the ■ samo period numbered 23. . These figures must show that some reform was. absolutely necessary. Small Grazing ..Buns.! , '. . ' : ■'• . He did not' say. that his proposals iu regard to small • glazing runs would satisfy all-the tenants of these areas, but there was an honest attempt to do these settlers justice. These runs Were held under .-many Acts, the provisions of which were frequently in, conflict with one another. Grazing runs on ordinary Crown lands would be converted into perpetual leases with a 21 years' term, and provision for revaluation. The Bill provided that if the State at any time should require these small grazing runs. for closer settlement, a run could be divided into several allotments, ,of which the original tenant.would have tho right of; selecting one. He would,, in addition, receive compensation for improvements on other portions of the mil. If the tenant elocted to go out he would receive not only compensation for his improvements, but compensation for his interest in the lease. Mr. Russell:. Who pays? Mr. Msfsey: The State or the incoming settler. Tho State takes tho responsibility. He went on to discuss the more important clauses of the . Bill in 'detail; contending that the provision for townplanning in Clause 3 .represented a great advance upon anything now in the Statute Book. Settling Gum Lands. Concluding his remarks, Mr. Massey said that ho had reason to believe that his proposals in regard to settling fhe gum lands would result in very largely increasing the number of our northern settlers. In Committee he would be prepared to accept any reasonable amendments, but it would be unwise to attempt to overload the Bill. (Applause.) SPEECH BY MR. MACDONALD. DISAPPOINTED WITH THE BILL. Mr. W. D. S. MACDONALD (Bay of Plenty) said tho Prime Minister must be congratulated on tho Bill, but as a mere looker-on he confessed that ho" was disappointed. Ho recognised, as the Prime Minister did, that the land question was the most vitally important one to this country, but he (lid not agree that in encouraging land settlement the Liberal Administration had been at fault. There .were in this Bill' only a few. clauses which were not in the Land Bill .of : 1910. Tho new Land Bill would not work the great changes that had been claimed it would bring about. The fact was that all the settlement that could reasonably be expected had been going oh of recent years under the administration of the Liberal Government. What the country would really have to consider as much as settlement was finance. Some of the changes proposed were undoubtedly good, but they would cost money, and it would bo necessary for the Minister to haveian eye for the financial side of these proposals. Under the scheme the Minister was ompowered to deal with private owners, and cut up their land, road it, and dispose of it for. the owner by auction. The effect of this would be that the owner would -receive from 30s. to X 2 per acre more than he would in an ordinary sale, and the tenants would have to pay the extra price. He thought that tho land should really be out up, carefully valued, and disposed of by ballot. As in tho past, the Government would find it necessary to protect people from themselves, and to refuse to allow them to pay too much for k»nd offered for sale. He was disappointed with the Bill, because he did not think it would materially improve the state of things in regard to land settlement in New Zealand, and he would, when tho Bill was in Committee, move an amendment to the effect that L.1.1 , . tenants lie given permission to purchase the freehold of settlement lands. THE MEMBER FOR STRATFORD. RADICAL DEVELOPMENTS PROMISED. Mr. J. B. HINE (Stratford) said - he would like to ask the member for the Bay of Plenty if ho considered the lands for settlement scheme a good thing for tho country. Under it 5000 people had a monopoly of six millions of money. Mr. Mncdonald's Iproposal to give lease-in-perpetuity teuants of settlement lands the right to acquire tho freehold at the original value was a plagiarism from tho platform of the Reform party. This proposal would not go through during the ■present, session, but no doubt it would pass into law next year. The remark came with a bad grace from the lion, gentleman, who had just vacated office, that there was need for a broad national land policy. Mr. Ilino ridiculed the assertion that the Government was identified with the interests of largo landowners. He would not give away any caucus secrets, but lie ventured to predict that before many years had passed tho influence of the radical element in tho Government party would ho seen upon tho Statute-book. Mr Hine.said that, the proposals for the settlement of Native lands would be of enormous value. The Government party had gone to the country as a freehold party, and the present Opposition as leaseholders. Mr. Witty: That is not so. Mr. Hino said that ho was at a loss to know what was in the minds of members on the other side when thov said that they were prepared to let lessors have the freehold at tho ' prnsent-dny value. A Crown tenant was allowed to sell his interest in his lease to a neighbour, and in tho case of the 999. years' lease tho tenant's interest was everything. The State bad no'interest. He commended the Bill to the House as a genuine attempt by the Government parly to put into effect the principle for which thev had stood for years. lie. congratulated thn Ministry on bavins introuucod tho .JBili ia thsU firW s&ssioa in Rower,

OTHER SPEAKERS. Mr. T. K. SiDEY" (Dunediii South) defended the perpetual lease; system as being especially suitable for a body such as tho State, which had a perpetual existence Crown leases had this advantage—that they lent themselves more easily to t policy of limitation of area than a freehold tenure for all lands. Tho new-party had lost no timo in giving effect, to pro posiils which had been strenuously resisted by the late Government party. Jn his opinion there were no adequate safeguards in the Bill against aggregation. Ho did not approve of the- proposals under which leasehold tenants could acquire the fee. simple of their holdings. . Mr. ,T. H. ESCOTT (Pahintua) said that it had pleased him to hear statements from both sides of tho House that this question should bo dealt with, from a non-party standpoint. He defended the freehold system of tenure as the only one that could be permanently satisfactory in any country. Under no other tenure could there be intense culture on small holdings. The debate was adjourned at 0.30 a.m. on the motion of Mr. If. H. Smith, until to-day at 2.30 p.m., and the House rose.