LAND BILL.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 1888, 24 October 1913, Page 4

LAND BILL.

V v i FREEHOLD THE CROWN | LESSEES. 5 —— ' I • 1 FINAL INSTALMENT. ! :' ■ : " . . ." ' , 1 • 1 ' ! '■ ..-f • ;■. Tli0;IIon. H< D. BELLj moving tlio ■ second roading of the . Land Laws 1 Amendment Hill, - said he? canioto the f Comioil for the hrial approbation of the c granting of the freehold to the tenants i of the Crown—final, so far as it was J possible. This,;tho granting of. the. free- t hold With' limited area to the ! lessees c of settlement land, was' the principal t , feature' Of the Bill. But- the Govern- .i ment;'in-mopdsing'to graiit "the free- r hold to holders of renewable leases and t ltases-in : perprctuity ef Crown lands and t settlement land, did not propose in any c way tO'jiltorfere with the lands reserved 1 as National Endowment. He asked c leave of the Council to make a brief s reference to a matter affecting him per- j sonally.; He was lesseo _ of pastoral ' lands, and the Bill'very largely im- t ■' proved tlie position' of pastoral tenants. 1 Until he came to be in charge of the Bill he had refrained from tailing any ' part in the framing of the legislation 1 to deal with pastoral lands, and his J colleagues bad permitted him to reflain. Now, in charge of the Bill, he 1 would have to' do his best to put the a Bill through. His intotest was, how- 0 ever ; only a imall one, but ho was the nominal holder of the license as executor for his late father. The property was , taken Up in 1850. He could have divested himself of his interest, but he • preferred to ltocp his long-standing asso- ? elation with this property. (Hear, 11 hear!) ? A Limit Too Low. He went on to explain the provisions j of the Bill, lloforring to the section by which it was proposed to allow dwollers ]j in cities to acquire'land in tile dountry j, without being compelled to reside Upon j it at once, he said that the limit of u income of persons to whom the clauses w should apply had been fixed by tho t, \ Honso at £300. -This limitation con- e fined the privilege below the lino which n had been intended. It was quite right r , that there should bo a limit', but he p Would probably propose Inter to in- n creaso tho limit of income io £350, and w he hoped this mijrht be ac- p eepted hy the Council. Ho could t] say . that £300 did not reach 0] tho limit the Government had hoped p for) for the reason that tho privilege, j 1 as.;the.y thought; could hardly bo tie- w nidtl to a class having a joint incomo w somewhat ahove the sum ho had nam- q ed," In the Bill as originally intro- g duped, no limit had been proposed. a i "Freehold "Is Common sense." ; jj; He snoke briefly of the effect of ai clause 28, which gave rise to so much 0 discussion in the Lower House, and tl clause 29, by which all the minerals in h the, Hauraki lands woro reserved to the C Crown. For his part ho did not think ri clause 29 was. necessary, hut no man ol could possibly object to it except on ai 'the-sentimental-ground taken by some e< that the freehold should not be parted ti with. p Mr. Jones: it is not a question of m sentiment. It is a question of money t< —parting with our patrimony. Free- p : hold is. a sentiment. ' fi Mr. Bell: I should sav that freehold p, is common sense, and leasehold a senti- r< ment. J] Preference at Ballots. f\ Section 33, ho went on to say, would h probably bo found to'be unsatisfactory, n, : ■ and ho would bo glad of the assistance ti of the Hon. Mr. Anstoy in improving tl it. Tlie' attempt made. to, ?ivo profer- gi enco at ballots to married applicants tc had been most unfortunate in that it tc had excluded single men altogether; 'W and in .the attempt to give preference a to applicants who had previously been a unaticcessfuli care must bo taken not g< to exclude all others. Any 'course; which en could lie devised which would not ex- N elude young men anxious to go on the ri land, and which would give certain rc people' with possibly better claims a bt preforence, would not only to • have consideration, but would be re- w ceived .with gratitude . by. the Govern- ec ment, whether they could accept the bi suggestions in tho form b which tihey g< Tver# offered or not. Tho Mortgage Difficulty. The Bill attempted to get over the fi< difficulty created by the limitation of d< area provisions in the law in reducing to the seourityoffered to mortgagees, who l'| might be debarred by the limitation of ti' ■ area clausos from taking up tho land. C 'And it was necessary to encoiirago of mortgagees to lend, not in their own in interests, because they had any amount t,i of other porfectly safe securities open, w but in tho interests of the settlers in ao need of advances. Ho would throw out H two suggestions. One was that the ai mortgagee entering upon land should o| not be treated as the mortgagee in hi possession, but be liable only for what tl lie actually ■ received, and be charged w only with what he actually, spent, This oi

might possibly be done without affecting the limitation of area part of the law. A second suggestion was that when tlie mortgagee bought in instead of taking possession, and when he received from the Registrar, through whom ho must buy in gucli a case," a marked or qualified title, then obviously tho land liiig'ht be held by him as long as he pleased, excopt that it .could not bo sold again except to a person ; with a particular area. Then the mortgagee would have a title which was assailable always, and he would be entitled to sell at a price only which would indemnify him lor the amouni of his mortgage. Ho merely offered these suggestions to members; they ;vcro not proposals from' him as Minister. It was idle to Bay that tho. Government were trying to enablo people to evade tho law', because the real object of tlie proposals was to enable settlers to got advances of money which they required. Hoading. Ho also spoke of Part 2 of the Bill, which provides for the . reading of recently sottled districts. Much _had ! been said of the hardships occasioned to settlors put on, lands to which there was not road access; but it was impose sible to delay settlement until roads Were made, because settlers wanted tho ' land, and they would have it. The Bill would, however, do away with the iniquity of. the absorption into the Consolidated Fund of to Venues from tho land,, while the settlers , were in need of roads. The money would be paid into a special account for the making of theso roads. Tho money might bo expended by the local body interested, but it was .provided that the settlers arid not the local bodies should say what roads wero necessary to give them the access they required. ' Bursting Up Estates. He explained generally the effect of the proposals to take private glands required for settlement. Practically it was intended to givo an owner whose land was required for settlement notico that, his lands were so required. The owner had then, five years within which to road, subdivide, and sell bis land, and if he chose to do so then all tho profits wore his; but if he did not do so, then 'the Crown could take tho land at tho value, at. which dt stood at tho date of and the owner was under tho penalty that if his land increased in value in the meantime then all the profits' went to the Crown. This was no new menace to property-owners, because the Crown now had the right to tako a man's land - compulsorily. It .was an honest attempt' to meet without unfairness .the necessity .to deal fairly with the owner, maintaining the right of tho country to have land settled' which was required for settlement. In these and other proposals the Government had refused to adopt a tyrannous attitude in putting pressure on private owners. A FARMER'S CRITICISM. THE HON. J. ANSTEY. The Hon. J. ANSTEY said that in criticising the Bill he would not do so in a spirit of hostility to the Government. He would speak merely as one interested in 'settlement. The Bill had . many very good points, and' one of them was tho grant of a better : tenure" to tho holders of pastoral licenses. _ Undoubtedly these lands ■ had deteriorated, and the cause of the i deterioration was largely due to the ; unsatisfactory tenuro under which they i wero held. The improvement in the ] tenure would, ho believed, have the i effect of improving tho lands. Ho was j not sure that the provisions for tho ! reading. of settlement areas would be j productive of so much good as they ■ miglit, but ho believed tho clause j would do some good. Other good points in tho Bill were the removal of tho reserve from gum lands, and' tho encouragement of tree-planting. Some proposals ill tho Bill, however, were, 1 in his opinion," wholly bad. Thoro \ were two different proposals to do away • with residence conditions, one affecting J Crown lands and ono affecting small ' grazing runs. These proposals struck j at the very root of settlement as a . distinct encouragement to land aggregation. _ They could not do any good, and might do a great deal of harm, j On these points ho intended to diviao tho Council, even if ho were alone in his opinion. Also, ho would divido the Council, on tho proposals to give the right to the freehold to the tenants of small grazing-runs, and to the tenants of Hauraki lands. He was not so much against tho latter proposal as the former. | _ Ho found himself in a peculiar position with regard to the main question of giving' tho freehold to holders of leases in porpetuity. In principle ho was opposed to giving the freehold to l.i.p. tenants, but the proposal had been twice approved by tho representatives of tho people, and ho did not feel that- he would be right in further opposing it. He would record his protest, but Jio would not placo himself m opposition to tho representatives of the people. . He agreed that there was need for tho provision to give relief by way of reduction in rent 1 to settlers on certain blocks which were 1 too highly valued. Some of our settle- 1 ment lands had been bought at too high 5 i prico, and no ono could possibly make 3 i living off them. These men must ?et relief, but tho provisions should be carefully hedged round with safeguards. Nor should the tenant be given tho € right to purchase tho freehold at the * reduced value. Also, it would not 1 be advisable to allow these provisions ? to apply to leases sold at auction, other- ' tv'iso there would bo an incentive offer- 1 id to. competitors - to run prices up, ' inowmg that afterwards they could * ;et rid of their burden, I 1 -Exemptions from Resldcnco, e Ho did not think there was any jnsti- ! Boation for Clause 22, permitting resi- , :lence conditions to be dispensed with to permit town dwellers to acquiro land, rhis was o direct incentive to aggregation, and _ would hamper settlement. Certainly ifc was not necessary, in view 3f the number of genuine settlers asking for land. If this privilege were taken adva.ntage of in, a wholesale way. ivhat sort of a time would genuino iettlers have v.'ho were on the land ? | How would thev get schools, telephones, and all tho other facilities? Tie would fippose the clause to the uttermost of his ability. It was all very well to say that. lessees gotting this concession would have to put on double the amount Df improvements required of resident 11

settlers, but this would apply to rough lands, on which tho improvements ro- ! quired would not need to be more than 2s. an acre. The absentee lessees woulili only bo required to put on Js. an acre or thoroabmits—merely the cost.of a boundary fence—ar.d they could hold as absentees. Ho was just as strongly opposed to excusing residence on small ; grazing runs. This would bo sure- to lead to aggregation. The tenure of 1 small grazing runs was quite satisfactory, tho settlors were in good heart, and ho could sec no reason for making the change proposed. Ho would divide the Couucil on tho clauso, and he hoped it would not pass in the present shape. Hauraki Lands. Ho opposed the giving, of the freehold to Hauraki lands. It did;not follow, as was urged, that the grant of tho • freehold would lead to a great improvement of the lands. Instances oould.be found of freehold land becoming over T grown with brier and brambles; and if theso lands wero capablo of improvement they should be capable of 'subdivision. If the settlors. had been given tho improved tenuro given to pastoral licensees, this would have brought tho lands into occupation, and they would have been improved. This woiild havo had the advantage that tho State would hold tho lands for subdivision if necessary, but now tho freehold was parted with, and tho land had passed out of the-control of the Government. Preference at Ballots. .With regard to tho proposals to give preference at ballots, tho effect of the previous amendment to give preference to certain peoplo had lecf to exclusion. Tho preference to people twice previous- , ly unsuccessful had debarred ovorybody clso from going to ballots, and therefore from. tho possibility of becoming "twice previously unsuccessful." Ho would like to soo preferenco to landless, and some preferenco to persons with families. Ho would try to draft a clauso which would meet with tho Minister's approval. Purchase of tho Freehold. After the adjournment Mr. Anstey expressed approval of tho proposal to allow* settlors ■ twenty years instead of ten years in which to purchase tho freehold.- Ho thought tho Government would yet have to allow more than twenty years. Ho also approved of Clauso 43 dealing with mortgages, tho object being to enable a mortgagee, who 'had to foreclose, to dispose of tho land again. Referring to the. clauso'empowering tho Governor to subdivide tho Cheviot grazing runs, he admitted that tho land, now that tho railway passed close by, was fit for. close settlement, and the Government ought to retain the right to subdivide land when that became desirable. . Pastoral Runs. Ho could not too highly commend tho provisions in tho Bill giving a more secure tenuro to pastoral licensees. All onr lands had been mado more productive, with the single exception of our pastoral runs, and tho reason was that tho tenure under which theso lands had been hold was bad. It was his firm belief ! that tlfbse lands would, under this now) tenuro, bo restored to their former state, and even made more productive than they had over been before. Ho did ■ not agree with the too generous 1 exemptions residence proposals regarding pastoral lands, He admitted that it would be a hardship to compel personal residence on somo of . the higher runs, but he thought all tho : licenses should contain a residence clause, to be administered at tho discretion of tho board. This would enablo the board to prevent aggregation, which certainly had gono on jn connec- . tion with the holdiiig of those runs.' ( Aggregation anft Subdivision.; v: j 'He did not believo the 'Government should part with tho freehold to leaßO- ] in-perpetuity tenants, but ho did not , propose to do more than to protest. ( Nor did ho believe that the sottlers j under this tenure would purchase much ] of tho land. They had tho best tonure | in the world .now, and there was no < reason why thoy should pay off the j principal unless they wished to sell tho j iand. From what ho could learn, thoso who had purchased already were mainly j holders of lands of low initial value, , which wero now .worth very much more { than that initial valuo. ■ He did t not consider that tho clauso dealing with the privato subdivision of large ] estates was really effective. Tho Goverpment could exerciso compulsion to ] the extent of making a purchase, but 6 tho owner could not be compelled to do j very much in tho way of subdivision. He ], could cut up his land, ostensibly t with the purpose of selling it, and offer f it for sale for cash at the full market valuo. Thoso wore reasonable condi- T tions (which was all the Bill required), r but tho fact was that when a man of- 0 fered land for cash sale ho never by T any chance got a buyer. The clause to prevent aggregation would not do the % slightest good in preventing the worst a form of aggregation, tho acquisition by c a man with a large freehold of a largo a loasehold. He noped tho Minister j] would sond the Bill to tho Lands Com- d mitteo. t Omissions. There was nothing in the Bill, ho said, to promote settlement. Especially the Government could havo done t some good by doing something' to rogu- k late tho control of education reserves. r Much of this land, good land, well- t joaded, fit for dairying, was shamefully g mismanaged by the boards. These c boards should bo compelled to adminis- ], ter the lands in somo degree in the in- r terests of the State. Another omis- ( sion in tho Act' was provision for tho c breaking-up of very largo estates. His 1, solution of this problem was a gradu- £ ated land tax' on a totally different s scale from anything that had yet been t tried. Last year's tax had been farci- () cal, in that it had not applied suffi- s eiontly heavily to the very large estates. In conjunction with this, tho Govern- t ment must provide . some means by a which the owners could dispose of their ]. land. Otherwise a great injustice n would bo done to the own- 0 ers. The supply of Crown land . for [, settlement was approaching vanishing Cj point, and the only land that could tl now be looked to for closer settlement a was that hold in large estates. v: A LAND NATIONALISER. f] THE HON. J. IIIGG. The Hon. J. BIGG said that as a v land nationaliser bv' conviction he did e not welcome the Bill, and he was sorry n to havo to say that it would put Now tl Zealand back to where it was twenty r< years ago. It was then that Mr. Bal- tl lance enunciated his policy, but that w policy had been departed from by the Liberal party in later years. The Liberals had disgusted those who were in favour of land nationalisation, and had t< not pleased those who were in favour w of the freehold. -Their action had made p, it possible for tho lleform party to do a: what Lord Derby had called "Dishing n; tho Whigs," and to offer Crown tenants a tho right ,to the freehold. Everything £ but that the tenants had already, and ho was not sorry to seo the last instalment go. Now the land national- aisers could sot to work to build anew, t ( but with the ground cleared. If the ] f freehold principle were sound it should -tl certainly ho applied to all endowments. I This would assuredly yet he advocated, j but before it could bo carried out thoro would bo a change in tho representation £ of tho people in Parliament. u' There was, however, much in tho Bill nf which ho could approve, and one X tliing was tho clause dealing with tho aggregation "f private land. Tho clause \\ introduced a new and a great principle l 0 capable of great development. w He believed we had not yet done with (( this fight of leasehold versus freehold, jt He, anticipated that beforo long there lu would be a Labour Party in New Zen- w land, and they, would start out on their L»

'light for the leasehold with a clear field. Tho debate was adjourned, oil tile motion of the Hon. J. T. Paul. ■TRAMWAYS BILL, ; The Tramways Amendment Bill was received from the House of Reprcscntatives, and rend a first time. The Council rose at 9.52 p.m.