THE LAND BILL

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 21, 20 October 1920, Page 8

THE LAND BILL

-■:■' ■ . 1 LEASEHOLDERS PROTEST < ] ABOUT THE SMALL GRAZING RUNS j INJUSTICE TO LESSEES ] ALLEGED i ' i : The Land Laws Amendment Bill was Returned to the House of Representatives i ■yesterday by the Lands Committee with ' one amendment. The Bill as presented ' to the House provided that the classes of applicants having preference at land ballots should include "landless applicants who have children dependent upon them." The committee had inserted the words "one or more" before "children." , Mr. G. Witty (Riooarton) suggested, in ' sarcastic vein, that the Government ' should have 6aved a good deal of paper by bringing down a Bill of one simple ciause enabling it to part with the free- ' ■hold of of endowment land. > Those who had formerly taken up the ' leasehold had been satisfied people, and had been doing well. ■ But the present ' Government had seen an opportutnity to i get into power by giving away the free- ' hold of the publio estate at the .original Valuation. Members: No. . Mr. Witty: In many cases. ■ _ • ' The Governmentt, added Mr.' Witty, was not merely giving the State tenants • the freehold of the national property, it was making concessious to farmers that ■were made to nobody else. The farmers had been allowed to refuso to grow wheat except at an exorbitant price. Their meat had been held in the stores until it went bad while the people paid high prices for tthe supplies they needed. The farmer was being assisted to get the freehold on one hand, and to get high prices for produce on the other hand, and the per.ple suffered all the time. Mr. Witty ta'lced, energetically about land monopoly, and assured the House that the Bill gave the Government power4o part with all the national endowment land, although rn area of 10.000 acres was mentioned in one of the clauses for camouflage purposes. A Government that would sell the national endowments would have no hesitation about selling the educational endowments, the Church endowments, and the. local bodies' endowments. The land speculator was the man who was making money in New Zealand, and he was being assisted by the Government to continue his operations, with the result that the price of land and the cost of living Vculd continue to rise. Small Grazing Runs. ■ Mr. G. Forbes (Huranui) said he recogjuised the Government was going to have . its own' way in this matter. It had '.already granted tho freehold to tonants ;of Crown, and settlement lands, and now ! it was-proposing to complete the disposal J of the public estate by selling the na- ;' tional endowments He regretted the ■ laid upon the people's land, but realised j that the leaseholders in the House vem i not able to resist it. Mr. Forbes statod •that tho Government had not kept faith Iwith the tenants of small "razing inns. ','. These tenants had believed that they had ; n perpetual right of renewal, the rent to bo 1\ per cent, on the unimproved .value, and the courts had upheld their i contention. They had not taken tho ;lease-in-perpetuity tenure when it was .offered' them, because they had a better lease But the Government, by retros..pective legislation in 1918, had deprived the tenants of their right . Mr. Massey: I have gone into tho matter thoroughly. I cm quite satisfied j that Parliament never intended that , these people should have a lease for all (time at 21- per cent. : Mr. Forbes rotorted that the Privy :'Council had ruled that the law gave the :terants a perpetual fright of renowal. The ■Government had over-ridden the law by 'lestrospective legislation.- The tenants of ,the grazing runs had not been treated fairly, and they had a right to ask for tha fulfilment of the contract tho Government had made with them in tho first instance. Tho Government was establishing a niinciple of repudiation The Minister in Reply. The Minister of Lands (Hon. D. H. Guthrie) said that tho Bill proposed to give the right of freehold to some of the tenants of national endowment land, and also to restore somo Crown land that had been wrongly declared endowment land. The Bill did absolute iustice to the lessees of the small grazing runs. It wa9 true that the Act of 1902 had apparently given these tenants a perpetual right of renewal at 2J per cent., but the view of tho Department was that this arrangement had not been intended by Parliament. Tho intention had been that the renewals should be subject to a right of renewal, and that tho rent, after the first term, should le calculated at i per cent, as in tho case of other leaseholds. When the grazing 'eases in the Gisborno district began to fall in. one of the tenants, Mr. St. Leger. claimed that he had a right to tho renewal at 2J per cent. His claim was upheld by the Court of Appeal and by the Privy Council, and the Government had recognised the decision and granted him all that he. claimed. Mr. Wilford: Did he not win it for all the others as well? Mr. Guthrie; "Ho won his own case. If was intended at tho time that the law should be put right, as in other cases ,where the law is not giving effect to the will of Parliament. Tho only thing to do in such a, case is to amend the law and that is being done in this case." The Minister added that to say that the tenants of grazing runs were to hold tho land for all time and pay merely 35 per cent, on the original value would indeed be an injustice to the public. Parliament had intended to encourage people to go on this land, but it had nover intended that the specially favourable terms offered the tenants should be continued after tho first term. It was not reasonable to claim special nnvilcge for leaseholder? in any case. If public interest demanded that a leas; should bo lerminated. the Government was entitled to take action. Members surely would not contend that leaseholders should bo given a degree of protection that was not given to freeholders. Any man who was

dispossessed of his land, either freehold or leasehold, was entitled to get full value for his interest. But beyond that the Government could not go. The Bill proposed to protect fully the interests of the tenant? of t-tie grazing runs. Mr. Guthrie added that ho admitted the sincerity of the leasehold members of the House. These members were entitled to state their case and to resist the Bill. But the freeholders, who were in a majority in the House and tho country, were similarly entitled to press their views. The fact that the freehold tenure was favoured by the majority must be admitted. ~ ~ Mr. L. M. Isitti (Chnstchurch North) < 6aid there was only one word to describe the action of the Government in regard to tho small grazing runs, and that was "repudiation." The "intent of the Legislature," relied on by tho Government did' not amount to a snap of the-fingers, since the leaseholders on whose behalf he was speaking had clear legal rights established before the Privy Council. The St Leger case, he submitted, was brought as a test case. Beaten upon the legal principle, the Government had enacted retrospective legislation to lake away a right which could not be token away otherwise. " „ "It was not retrospective legislation, tho Minister of Lands interjected. It dealt only with the future. If Mr. Isitt s argument was sound, no legislation should ever be amended. Mr. Massey: I have always been of opinion that the two and a half per rent was meant to apply only to the first .erin, and that' afterwards the rental was to be four per cent. . . Mr. Isitt: Whatever tho intent was, the Court, has affirmed that it cannot take any notice of the Governments intention. It must go by the terms of the 4ct. ' i A Dangerous Attitude. Mr A. D. M'Lcod (Wairarapa) said he was a confirmed freeholder, but he agreed with Mr. Forbes and Mr. Isitt that the Minister was taking up a dangerous attitude in regard to the matter under disSome of the grazing leases had been sold when the right of renewal at 2\ per cent, was not questioned, and the buyer had paid the price for tins advantage, which was now threatened. The Hon A. T. Ngata (Eastern Maori) urged tbe Government, to permit the lessees to enjoy the right to which the Privy Council had said they were enhtThe' report of tho Lands Committee, recommending that thel Bill should be allowed to proceed was agreed to on the voices THE BUTTER SUBSIDY AND THE BACK-BLOCKS FARMER, "Provision is made'at the present time for the payment of a subsidy of 6d. per lb. to dairy farmers supplying butter to dairy factories, but no provision appears to have been mode for the payment of this subsidy to the email farmer in the back-blocks' where tliero are no dairy factories," said Mr. li. Masters (Stratford) in the Houso yesterday afternoon. The ■•member wished to know whether the farmer producing separator butter in places where there were no factories would be granted the same concession as those living in more favoured parte. Tho Prime Minister replied that he was not able to make a definite statement on the matter at the .moment, though he appreciated the point that had been raised. He thought, with the member for Stratford, that the peoplo who were not within tho reach ot creamery or factory required some encouragement, since upon them the country would in part depend for its supply of butter in vears to come. He would like to put 'them in the same position as the other butter-producers if it could be done, but he would first have to inquire what was the quantity, of the butter produced ]>y the small men in the back-blocks, and whether the butter was fit for export. He would look into the matter and make a statement regarding it. ' AN INVENTOR'S LOSSES EAT-TEAP FOR SHIPS' HAWSERS. The losses of a man who had invented a rnt-trap for use on the hawsers of vessels in port were yesterday mentioned in tho Housa for the fourth or fifth time. 11. L. Worthington, of Potonc, was tho inventor,, and his device was designed chiefly to afford protection against tho dissemination of plague by rats.coming 1 n*hore from ships. The invention TO frken up by tho Governnioni.t, which ; issued an Order-in-Council requiring its u*e. Mr. AVorthington manufactured traps in anticipation of tho demand that ' would follow the operation of the Ordcr- ' in-Council, but tho operation of the Order was suspended, and Mr. Worthington ' sustained a loss He; petitioned Parlmmont for compensation, and his petnion was recommended to tho Government for favourable consideration. The petitioner i had occasion, however, to ask this session that tho recommendation should be oar- ' Tied into effect without delay, and the ' M to 7> Potitions Committee, reporting to ! the House yesterday, proposed that tho Government should favourably consider tho roquest, and refer to arbitration tho . assessment of the compensation due to [ % r PB ¥T Wilford (Hutt) said that t the. Government some yoars ago had •paid Mr. Worthington .£3,5 in full I quittance" of its obligations towards him. The payment was by cheque and the . cheque 'had ncvor been cashed, as Mr. i Worthington persisted in claiming that ; the Government owed him more. 3 Several other members spoke in sup- : port of the committee's recommendation. > Mr J M'C. Dickson (chairman of the ' committee) said lhat the frequency with 3 which the case had been mentioned in 3 the House demonstrated the futility of r much of tho work done by committees 1 appointed to investigate such matters - Tho petition was referred to the Gov--3 eminent for favourable consideration. : RAILWAY CONCESSIONS FOR CATHOLIC r l TEACHERS b A petition praying for tho renewal of il railway travelling concessions to teachers il in Catholic schools was yrsterday reporto ed upon by. the Education Committee t of the House. The committee had no a recommendation to make.