THE NEW LAND BILL.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXIII, Issue 1868, 24 September 1906, Page 2

THE NEW LAND BILL.

'(To the Editor Gisborne Times. Sir, —Space did not permit me in my last letter to touch upon the question of the national endowment provided for by the Land Bill; but so much has been made of this provision that it deserves some examination. What will this endowment amount to ? Wbat is the usual ex penditure on the objects for which it is set apart, and what difference is it likely to make to the colony’s finances ? Mr MoNab estimates that there are 1,000,000 acres of Oiown lands fit for settlement

left. The average capital value would probably be 10s per aore, but to be on tbe safe side let us say 20s per aere, and take the rental as 5 per cent, on this instead of tbe 4 per cent, provided by olauS9 5. We then have a revenue for the endowment purposes of £50,000, from whioh, of course, must be deducted the costs of management and administration, rangers, valuers, clerical staff, e(o„ etc., whioh doubtless will be large or small in accordance with the political necessities of the administration. Now, this £5C,000 is to be applied, clause 3, to (a) education, (b) hospitals and oharitable aid, and (o) old age pensions, so let ns oonsider what these items cost the country last year. The figures are: Eduoation vote £697,956, hospital and charitable aid £89,878, aui old age pensions £253,962, making a total of £1,041,796; if we deduct the £50,000 endowment it leaves £991,796 still to be derived from tbe Consolidated Fund or revenue of the oountry. As the revenue derived from Crown lands is at present paid into the Consolidated Fuad, oan you, sir, point out what difference it will make to the taxpayers of this colony whether this £50,000 is called ' The National Endowment Account” or part of tho “ Consolidated Fund," for I confess that the question is too abstruse for me ?

Before I leave Clause 3, let me say that it seems to indicate that " thirds ’’ will be abolished and local bodies lose this souroe of revenue, besides timber and flax royalties,

The one bright Bpot in the Bill appears to be the abolition of the old lease inperpetuity system, whiob, it is satisfactory to note, the Government have at last realised is both unsatisfactory to the bulk of settlers and a loss to the State. The 66 years’ renewable lease as a substitute (if

there must be leasehold without the right of purchase) is a distinct adyanoe, but it is not clear why it is made to apply only to rural lands as it would be a greater advantage if applied to pastoral lands also. The term of 66 years seems peculiar, and it is questionable whether this is the most satisfactory period for the lease. A great many thiuk it should be longer, but personally I am disposed to think it would be more equitable if for a shorter period as long as there is a perpetual right of renewal. This Bill is undoubtedly an effort to establish the leasehold principle while attempting to propitiate the freeholders, in spite of the overwhelming weight of evidenoe taken by the Land Commission in favour of the freehold. The supporters of the leasebold tenure are mainly those who are not directly or indireotly interested in land, and who consequently have little real knowledge of the subject. The impression undoubtedly held by these people is that the agitation for the freehold has been will the object of giving the tenants of short-term leases, as well as the lease-in-perpetuity tenants, the freehold at original values, and therein lies much of their opposition. This cannot too often be denied, for it would be as manifestly unfair to the State in the former case, as it iB unreasonable to withhold it from the tenants in the latter, and it has never been advocated by the Opposition party or the Farmers’ Union.

Thanking you for granting me so muoh space in your oolumns, I will close by expressing the hope that the people of this district will express thoir opinion upon the question with no uncertain voice before it is too late.—l am, etc,, W. LIBSANT CLAYTON.

[Thesettingup of a“Nattional Endowment Account ” of only £ 50,0C0 where over a million is required is a mere tinkering with the question, and we can see no reason for it except as a pretence that something was being done to secure tho annual cost of Education, Hospital and Charitable Aid, and Old Age Pensions.—Ed. G.T.j