RIGHT TO THE FREEHOLD

Dominion, Volume 37, Issue 235, 1 July 1944, Page 6

RIGHT TO THE FREEHOLD

There will be strong support from public opinion for the requests to be made by ex-servicemen, through their organization, that soldier settlers whose holdings come under the Small Farms Act, and those on Crown lands, should have the option of acquiring the freehold title to their properties. People who took up holdings tinder the original Small Farms legislation had the right to .acquire the feesimple, but the Labour Government, in the amending Act of 1939, limited the tenure for future holders to 'a renewable lease, and apparently in order to make the provisions watertight, added the clause: “The lease shall not confer on the lessee any right to acquire the feesimple of any land comprised therein.” What the returned men are now requesting is that they should have that right restored so that, if any of them wish to acquire their property, they can do so. That, in the great majority of cases, would simply mean the adoption of the system of occupation with right of purchase, which probably has done more to place men on the land than any other system. The conference is said to have agreed unanimously that ex-service settlers on Crown lands, “having by war service earned the right to acquire the freehold.” should have it granted without delay. '.I he reason given is a weighty one, but the right should be extended as a matter of national policy and in no way as a concession. There can be no desire to impose any other tenure on those who prefer some form of lease, but those who farm the land, who in many instances have brought it in from the rough, should be permitted, if they wish, to hold it on terms that would enable them to make it their own within reasonable time. The R.S.A. Dominion Council undoubtedly can make out a strong case for the settlers in whose welfare it is particularly interested, but the principle of the thing should be applied to all. The State has acquired areas for purposes of subdivision and settlement that, in the aggregate, will provide for a fairly large number of ex-servicemen. Some of this land had been bought before the present Government came into office, and much of the remainder, if indeed not all, was freehold land. Why, simply because it passes by way of a State department from one occupier to another, should the tenure be changed from freehold to leasehold? If the Government replies that in its opinion the leasehold is the better then there can be no objection to offering the settlers the choice. That is all that the R.S.A. Dominion Council has asked. The motions stipulate simply “the right- to acquire the freehold” and the opportunity to “obtain the right of freehold tenure.” The option sought is in every way reasonable, and to admit that, in the case of ex-servicemen, it is fully deserved, does not detract in any way from the claims of others to the same privilege, and for the simple reason that the thing is right in principle.