LAND BILL.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 1872, 4 October 1913, Page 6

LAND BILL.

EXTENDING THE FREEHOLD. THE NEW PROPOSALS. The Hon. W. F. MASSEY moved the second reading of tho Laws Amendment Bill. Ho was glad, he said, to be able to Bay that tho Land Bill had mot with general approval throughout the length and breadth of the oountry, and as Parliament was supposed to reflect the opinion of the people of the country ho had no doubt that tho Bill. would meet with tho approval of a majority of members of the Houso. The Bill was a freohold Bill, another instalment of the freolicld principle embodied in the Bill of last year. When tho Bill of last year was introduced it was welcomed by the settlers from end to eiid of New Zealand. It gave the Crown tenants renewed energy, something to hope for, something they did not expect for raany years. So he believed the present Bill would bo welcomed by the settlers to whom it would apply. It would bo beneficial to them, and no loss to tho State. It would show to the settlors doinff tha pioneer work in this country that Parliament was willing to acknowledge tho good, work done by the settlers in the back country.

The Two Essentials. Every member of the House must know that the prosperity of this country for the present and for the future depended to a great extent on the country settlers, on th® producers. And the success of the producers depended on two things, security of tenure and a good market for their products. The Government were trying to give the' settlers security of tenure. In regard to markets, while he was of opinion that Bfitain would for long bo our principal market, new markets were being found for our products.- The American tariff, which would probably bo law in the near future, would ba of immense benefit to the producers of this country, and to pastoralists especially, because it would steady the pries of wool, our moßt valuable product. The West Coast of America was taking some of our products also,'and a market was opened for our fruit on the East Coast of South Am«rica. It was therefore the duty of Parliament to make the most of these opportunities; and to do all that vas possible to bring unoccupied and unimproved land into cultivation. Country life must be made as attractive as possible, and part of the attractiveness «as security of tenure. Mr. Ell: Stato leasehold is sufficient security.. Mr. Massey: I don't agree with th® honourable gentleman that State leasehold is a sufficient security for the man on the land. "A Radical Sentiment."

It was not sufficient, he continued, to induct a man to make the mest of liiß land.. A great deal of nonsense had been talked about the State bartering tho peopled birthright under the Bill of last year. The plain fact was that the State never parted with the ownership of its land. The State parted with the fee simple of the land, which was a very different thing. Although tho fee simple carried with it great privileges, it also carried with it very great responsibilities, and it was tho duty of the man on tho land to do all ho could to bring that land into tho highest cultivation. If lie was not willing to do that, then it' should be impossible for him to hold it._ This was a radical sentiment, but it was his opinion

Finality Not Yet, Ho believed that wo wero not very far away from tho time when our yearly exports would bo £30,000,000 in value. This year ho would venture to prophesy that tho exports would not be worth less than £25.000,000. If producers were to , bo encouraged to increase our exports in tho intorests of tho country, tho Government must promote liberal land laws, and put legislation on tho Statute Book satisfactory to the producers. Many people thought that it would bo possible For tho Government to reach finality in land legislation. He did not believe anything of tho sort would over be possible, especially in a country lilto ours, with its rapidly-increasing population, for as circumstances change, conditions nuist alter, and the changed conditions mUBt bo provided for. The object of tho Bill, and tho policy of tho Governmont, was to give security of tenure to our settlers, to increase productiveness, to increase exports, and by so doing to increase tho wealth of this country. Progress of Subdivision. Mr. Mossey went on to quoto from Ft rsoort ha had reoolved from the

Valuer-General, giving particulars of tho subdivision that had taken placo during tho last eighteen months. For tho purposes of the return, tho eighteen months' term was divided into three periods of Gix months, from March 31, 1912, to Soptember 30, 1912, from September 30, 1912, to March 31, 1913, and from March 31, 1913, to September 30, 1913. Tho returns for tho last term were not complete because all the transactions had not been recorded, but tho return left no room for doubt as to the growing activity of subdivision in rural 1 lands. In tho first period, in subdivisions bv. freeholders, tho. number of original holdings was 369, the number of subdivisions 657, and the total area 145.971 acres. Under tho Land Settlement Finance Act tho area disposed of was 2341 acres, and under tho Land for Settlement Act, 35,580 acres, making a total area of' 187,393 acres. In the next six months, in subdivision by freeholders, tho number of original holdings was 468, tho number of subdivisions 1324, and tho total area 251,598. Under the Land Settlement Finance Act thoro wero nine original holdings, the subdivisions were 78, and the area 10.857 acres. Under the Land for Settlement Act the original holdings wore seven in number, subdivisions 94, area 92,499. This made the. totals 484 original holdings, 1496 subdivisions, and tho aroa 354,984 acres. In the last term 426 froohold areas woro cut up into 1009 subdivisions, and tho area was 163,409 acres. - Under the Land Settlement Finance Act thero were four original holdings, cut into 28 subdivisions, and tho area 4182 acres. Under the Land for Settlement Act thero six original holdings, 81 subdivisions, and tho area was 9043 acrcs. This made the totals 436 original holdings, 1118 subdivisions, and 176,634 acres in area. Tho grand totals for the eighteen months were—original holdings 1304, subdivisions 3447, area 719,011 acres. In addition to all this there were subdivisions of Crown lands and Native lands, and of these lie had no record. And tho Crown had in the period purchased for subdivision twelve estates, of a total area of 131,000 acres. This brought the total area of land subdivided up to between 800,000 and 900,000 acres. Who would say from theso figures that subdivision was not going on satisfactorily? Tho figures showed also that subdivision and settlement hsd been stimulated remarkably in the second period by the present Government's land' legislation of last year. Aggregation. The Prime Minister said that nothing in the Bill had given him so muck thought as the proposals relating to aggregation. One reason was that somo forms of aggregation wero satisfactory and should oo encouraged. Somo Crown tenants in the past had been established on holdings upon which it was impossible to make a living. Thousands of these settlers had forfeited their holdings and those that wore left had added some of the forfeited lands to their original holdings.' This was a. satisfactory development. With a view to preventing harmful aggregation tho Government had provided that where such aggregation wrs reported the Minister and tho Land Purchase Board, acting in concert, should make investigation, and if they found that aggregation had Qccurrcd, should compel the owner iii question to dispose of the land he had last acquired. This, he believed, would act as a deterrent, and as a sort of danger signal, and would remind individuals that private interests must give way to tho publio good. Promoting Subdivisions.

Another important , clause provided that whero a man held a largo block of land, which the Minister and the Land Purchase Board considered suitable for subdivision, ho should bo given one of 'three options. Those were - . - (1) Ho could out uj> tho laud himself and make th« most oi it. (2) He could hand it over to tlio Lands Department (to bo subdivided, roaded and sold, and tke proceeds handed to. tlio ownor in securities or cash. (3) If an owner failed to take ono or «ticr of the so alternatives the land might bo taken compulsorily by tlio State under the compulsory provisions «f tho Land for Settlements Act. Ho believed that this clause would pro'Tuoto subdivision and with jomo knowledge of. the subject he considered that in nino bases out of ten til© owner would elect to subdivide his land rather than permit tho State to do it. It was very desirable that ■ ail owner should choose this courso. Tlio Vanishing Estates. Ho had previously expressed tho opin. ion in the ,House that in ten years there would not be a single largo estate left. He hold that opinion now and believed that tho figures he had quoted that night would go to show that he was very nearly corrcct. Tho estates h« had in mind wero those suitable for closer settlement and for subdivision— for dairy farming and cropping. Members must recollect that thoro were large estates not suitable for subdivision— estates of second-class land which wero fit for sheep country and would never bo fit for anything; elds. He was not thinking of theso estates, but of those of tho other variety and it was with estates of tho other variety that the Bill would deal. If land was worth £10 ail acre for sheep-farming it was worth - £-0 an acre for dairy-fanning. Under these circumstanees owners had an incentive to sell and 114 bolioved that this largaly accounted for the state of affairs disclosed by the figures he had quoted that night. Defeating Speculation.

The Prime Minister wont on. te explain the clauses of tha Bill in detail. lEter alia, he stated that measures wore boing taken to defeat and prevent speculation in Crown holdings. To this end it wa3 provided that if a man disposed of a Crown holding ho should be debarred from taking up another for ten years. Clause 10 was a very important ouo which met the difficulty due to the fact that some Crown leaseholds had in the past been much over-valuod. In some cases men who had put improvements on their sections to tho value of 80s. ail acre had been unablo to obtain loansfroin financial institutions because t'hoir sections, plus improvements, were valued at less than the valuation placed upon them by the Lands Department. It. was proposed that settlers so placed should have power to call for a revaluation. Another clause provided that "thirds" paid to local bodies might be expended not only on roads and bridges '.as at present, but upon wharves.

Hops for the City Man, Clause 18 should bo of intorest to people in towns and cities. Numbers of those people had a natural and very proper ambition to go tipon the land, although they wero not ablo to do so for tile timo being. Ho was thinking of artisans and peoplo similarly placed, who might bo earning £3 or £4 a week and could afford to spend perhaps £50 a year ill improving a section. Ho was allowing these men to como in. A man in such a position might tako up a section of Crown land if lie got an opportunity of so doing, but ho must havo someone living on tho section as a substitute—probably a mombor of his family—and as a proof of his bonnfides ho must make double the improvements othorwiso required under tho Land Act. The clause had been proposed last year, he thought by tho momber for Matsden. It had boon asked for by a number of people. He had been astonished at tho interest taken in this proposal. It was not a new proposal, but had been repealed, lie thought in 1892. Tho period m which a settler might pay for his land by deferred payments had been increased from ten to twenty years. This would enable settlers to acquire their holdings who found it impossible under existing conditions. A Limitation Difficulty. Thoy wero providing for limitation in oonnootion with tho settlomout of Crown

lands, and ho stood by tho principle of limitation. Tho difficulty had arisen, howover, that tho limitation provisions had seriously hampered tho financial operations of settlers because lending institutions found it difficult to obtain possession of tho land wheu it became neccssary to take ovor tho security. Tho Bill proposed that lending institutions taking over land to which tho limitation provisions applied should bo given two years in which to dispose of it. Ho was afraid, however, that tho proposal would not bo satisfactory. Another new proposal was that where settlers had not been provided with road-access any amounts which they paid into tho revenue should bo ospended in providing them with roadaccess. A State Mortgago. Clauso 48 dealt with the purchase of settlement lands held under lease-in-perpotuity. It must be held that improvements on these lands belonged to the tenant, and that the State_ owned only tho capital valuo upon which tho tenant paid interest. Tho money ho owed to tho State was practically a mortgage. Tho tenant was'being given an opportunity of paying off his mortgage to the Stato, tho amount payable being calculated upon an actuarial basis. Despite a critical interjection by the member' for Lyttelton lie believed that a largo majority of members would support tho clause. Mr. Laurenson: A majority does not provo that it is right. Mr. Massey: Oh, no, I have been in a minority ofton when I know that I was right. Finally he expressed a hope that the Bill would commend itself to tho House, and would be placed upon the Statute Book within a week or two.

Answering questions by Mr. Russoll and others, the Primo Minister said that it was proposod to retain as leasehold lands the national endowments, educational endowments, and thermal areas. Ordinary. Crown lands would be opened under leasehold tenure, as for years past, but settlers would have the option of acquiring the freehold.

THE OPPOSITION LEADER. FAVOURS OPTIONAL TENURE. SIR JOSEPH WARD (Leader of tho Opposition) said that the honourable gentleman had mado a very interesting speech.' Ho recognised, ho continued, that tho land legislation of tho country sinco the election • of 1911 was based upon tho freehold system. _ He could not find a single proposal in tho Bill that was going to make frosh settlement. Thoro was one proposal that would tend to rcduco settlement —that dispensing with residenco in certain cases. He endorsod what the Prime Minister had eaid about the importance of increasing exports, and wanted to see exports roach a total of not £30,000,000, but £100,000.000. People now living, if they reached tho allotted sjpan, might expect to see the New Zealand exports rcach a total of fifty or sixty millions. The Primo Minister: I sincerely hope

60. Sir. Joseph Ward contended that the subdivision of largo estates waß to bo attributed to the imposition of the graduated land tax. Ho contended that the Native land settlement polioy of tho Liberal Governmont had been more effective than the policy of the present Government. And in tho matter of subdivision by private holders of land the number of transactions that had taken place was marvellous by comparison with that going on now. Nor did ho believe much good would come of tho permission given to tenants to acquire the freohold, for the tenants would take the full twenty years allowed to them in which _ to make their payments, and very little money would come into tho Government's coffers wherewith -to purchase more land. He predicted that as a result of the aggregation clauses the people would prasontly discover that thoy wero being fooled. (Laughter from tho Government benches.) _ Bettor than tho proposals in tho Bill for tho ror.ding of back-blocks settlements would be a straight-out provision to appropriate half a million a year to enable th» land in theso areas to bo roaded with aa fittlo delay as possible. Hia own bolief was that the- only way to effect land settlement was to readjust and increase tho graduated land tax. An hon. member: You woro frightened to do it.

Sir Josoph Ward said that now that freehold tenure was to bo the teriuro of New Zealand, 110 was Balisffnd that there should bo strict limitation of area. To ensure this there must bo penal legislation to prevent aggregation. All our previous attempts to prevent aggregation had been mere tinkering with the question. Personally ho had always favoured tho optional tenure. Ttte BEST TENURE. FOR THE MAN ON THE LAND.

Mr. E. NEWMAN (Rangitikoi) congratulated tho Leader of tho Opposition on having declared himself in favour of the optional tenure. He (Mr. Newman) had thought previously that the one groat difference between tho two parties was that the present Govornmant party favoured the freehold, and the Opposition party the leasehold. Ho was satisfied from his experience of land settlement in New Zealand that in a country such as this, where settlors had to berrow money to improve thoir lands, the leasehold tenure was quite useless. He could not share the fears of the Leader of the Opposition that "dummyism" could possibly exist under the prsposals which dispensed with the obligations of compulsory residenco in certain cases. Now that aggregation was provonted it would bo well-nigh impossible for dnmmyisM to exist. I'll# attempt to prevent aggregation was really the first that had ever been made, and ho was of opinion that it would prove'to be a most successful attempt. A largo amount of settlement had been brought about by one means and another during tho last year or two, but probably beeauso money had been dear in that time, a comparatively small number of settlers -had taken up and paid' for the freehold of their lands. It was idle to deny that, the Government had shown some considerable activity in promoting tho settlement of the country. The provisions in tho Bill for tha protection of mortgageas, prevented from acquiring land by the aggregation restriction clauses, he did not regard as satisfactory. Mortgagees were to bo allowed to hold such land for two years before realising. He did not think this term was long enough, and ho mentioned that tho Bank of Now Zealand had had to hold its securities for much longer than two years before realising. He would suggest that the mortgagee should be allowed to hold land for two years, and that at tho end of that time he should bo compelled to offer to tho Government, and then if tho Government did not purchase 'tho limitation restrictions could be removed. Ho was not prepared to move this provision, but ho thought it worthy of consideration, and it should bo the aim of the House to afford financial institutions such protection that tlioy need not hesitate to lend money on the security of land. He had much pleasure in supporting tho Bill.

Qualified Approval. Mr. W. D. S. MACDONALD (Bay of Plenty) pleaded tho case for tho leasehold tenure, believing as ho did that it liad allowed many settlers to get on tho land who would never have got on the land under any other tenure. Ho argued that tho provisions in the land legislation of tho late Government for assisting a man to go on the land wero moro liberal than any of those in tho present Bill. He accused Mr. Massey of having adopted "Professor" Mills's land policy for tho eoinpulfiory acquisition of bis oatatoß,

Personally ho thought tho provisions wero inequitable. Generally lie thought tho Bill would benefit the settlers, and especially those on pastoral runs. Tho Greatest Curse—Landlords. Mr. 0. K. WILSON (Tairniarunui) said that the solution of the land question was undoubtedly of paramount importance to iS T ew Zealand. Tho present Government had solved tho greatest of all questions connected with tho land problem, and this was the grantihg of the freehold to settlers. There was no greater curso than landlords, ill a country, whether tlioy were State landlords or private landlords, and the Maori landlord wa3 the worst of them all. He did not believe the land purcliaso system was th« best method of settling the land, nor did ho believo that ail increa.se of tho graduated land tax would force land into tho market in such & way as would enablo the man with little means to purchase it and settle upon

it. Mr. L. M. ISITT (Christchurch North) aaid tho Bill was, in. his opinion, a laboured production. _ Ho argued that there was nothing logioal in tie refusal of the Government to givo tho freehold to tenants of education reserves while it was given to tenants of all other Crown lands. He believed that Crown leasehold would be better for tho people than freehold. Mr. T. W. RHODES (Thames) eaid. thq Bill, as a freehold measure, would be. acceptable throughout the country. Mr. J. PAYNE (Grey Lynn) was the last speaker before the adjournment. Mr. H. J. 11. OKISY moved tho adjournment of the debate, and the House rose at 0.35 a.m. •