THE LAND BILL.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 1967, 31 December 1906, Page 3

THE LAND BILL.

AIR JOHN AI('QUEEN'S VIEWS

E 90 PER CENT. PAYMENT A “FROZEN SECURITY.”

ESIRE EOlt FREEHOLD BRED IN THE HONE.”

Interviewed by a representative of the Mataura Ensign, Air John AleQueen, a prominent member of the Farmers’ Union, gave expression to his views on the Land Bill as follows : —•

“What is your opinion, Mr McQueen, as to the best form of tenure for the occupation of the land of the colony?” was the first question asked by our representative. Mr McQueen said I think the freehold is without doubt the very best form of tenure which can bo employed. That is my opinion most emphatically and is also that of the New Zealand Farmers’ Union. Speaking from a life-long experience, f can sa.v that the freehold is the best form of tenure, both for the individual and the State. \\ hat the Government should have done was to have ascertained—even if it required a Hoyal Commission—what is the best form of tenure and then to have disposed of all lands under that system of tenure. It is in the interests of the colony that there should be freehold tenure or lease with right of purchase—for lease with right of purchase is in, many respects the same or as good as freehold. Once it is agreed that the freehold tenure and lease with the option are the best for inducing the greatest output from the land, then there can be no doubt that these forms of tenure should be adopted. The question of first deciding which are the best forms of tenure is very important in considering the land question. One of the first proposals in the Land Hill is that on and after its passing all lands remaining unsold or undealt with shall be set aside as a national endowment, and the Bill goes on to explain how these endowments are to be dealt with. This was upon leasehold tenurse. It then goes on to show for what purposes the nett funds arising from leasing these lands are to be expended, or, in other words, the public departments to which the endowments are to be applied. These are Education, Charitauio Aid, and Old Age Pensions . These proposals, if adopted, would be at any rate a first instalment in the direction of land 11a- I tionalisation —or single tax and State landlordism. If we grant that the proposed course is the proper one to take ,and to lease these endowments will give the best results for the State, then it is but a step further in the same direction to acquire all lands and nationalise them, applying the proceeds of their rents to other departments than those already mentioned. We must then withdraw our objection to dealing with the rest of the public estate on the same principle . The same goal—land nationalisation—can' be reached very easily and effectively, as far as freehold’ lands are concerned, by enacting that on and after a certain date the land tax shall be set aside as a national endowment for any departments of State which are now carried on out of the consolidated revenue. All that is necessary to bring this about is for those in favor of the single tax to have the progressive land tax increased, lower or, do away with the exemptions, and there you have all the requirements necessary in the way of deriving the whole revenue from the land. This is the goal, I believe, that is aimed at hv a great many of the supporters of the Land Bill. "What do you think, Mr, McQueen, would he the general effect rf the Bill?” In criticising the Bill as a whole, and the conditions of the leases arranged for occupation, there is strong evidence that the Hill has been proposed and been prepared almost entirely from the landlord’s point of view. The interests of the landlord lave been conserved right through; nit the interests of the tenant have ividently been overlooked, and lie lias ipparently not been represented m Lhe .councils of the Government and party which prepared tile Hill. The landlord’s interests have been so well looked after that there is a provision in the 06 years’ renewal lease allowing the landlord’s representative, il in his opinion the laud has been depreciated during the currency of tin lease, to deduct the amount of site! depreciation from the value of im piovtments, and if there is not suffi cient in the improvements, then fron the 90 per cent, or whatever the amount may he which the tenant-lias paid off the capital value, There is no appeal from this decision of the representative of the landlord, and | the tenant cannot appeal and have I tlie valuation made by an Assessment or Arbitration Court. This depreciation may not have arisen through negligent or improper farming, but

■fli'uy have liooii caused' by unfortuiiiib;i oocurrcuccs over wdiich the lessee had no control. In this oyont ho L: equnll.v without redress. Take, for instance, the ease of noxious woods. When a now wood appears it hooomos a terror to tin settlors, and tins Agricultural Department frequently decides that it must ho eradicated. Settlers are thus put to considerable expense, in endeavoring to eopp with it. 'Should such a wood make its appearance just before the GO years’ valuation, and overrun, a man’s farm, the department might claim depreciation under - the Act, anil deduct sufficient from the valuation for improvements j or from the 90 per cent, part payment in reduction of capital value, to cover the depreciation caused by the weed. As a matter of fact, in many cases these weeds do not turn out to be the curse they were supposed to be, and hence it would be possible for a grave injustice to bo done to the unfortunate tenant.

*‘\Vhat do you think of thd 90 pov cent, payment, Mr. MoQuoon ?” Jiotli fclio Premier ami tho Minister

for Lands (and no douht other candidates i'or Parliament) when, before their constituents at the last election saw the difficulty which was being created by the carrying out of the Lands for Settlement Act. They could seo tho debt of the colony gradually increasing cuing to the operations of this Act, and both genliemeii pointed out the difficulty, and agreed that a profitable solution of the question was to grant the option *J purchase to Crown tenants. The minister for Lands, while in favor of the principle of granting the right of purchase, was not in favor ol granting it at the original land value. By granting the right of purchase it would prevent the piling up of the public debt to a considerable amount by the purchase of lands for settlement purposes. When framing this hill the same difficulty appeared, and in order to provide for it, they have made the provision to enable 90 polecat. of the capital value to be paid olf for reduction of rent purposes. They hoped from this 9.0 per cent, to obtain sufficient money to enable them to pu-chase further lands. Let us consider how this 90 per cent, pioposal would be likely to wor k on l Great numbers of settlers who take up Crown lands on lease are men with limited means. They go upon

,1m virgin lands —bush lands, swamp [amis, or tussock lanJs —which njuiro to be brought into a state of piditablo cultivation, and m 00 per cent, of cases this will need more capital than they are in possess ion of. They will not only require all the capital they have, blit will be forced to expend their muscle and probably thei rlives in bringing it into a, profitable state. In fine, in 50 to 60 per cent, of cases they will also require outside assistance from capitalists. It cannot be expected that a largo fund will accumulate from this proposed set tiers’-loans-to-Governmont scheme on a 60 years’ term. Some of the settlors may moot, in the natural course of things, with bad times, ill-liealth, and other reverses, and it will be necessary to keep their spare capital in a liquid state and not tic It up for 66 years. It will take all their resources to find sufficient capital to put into the land without lending any of it to tlm Government. The probabilities arc more in favour of their being borrowers than lenders- There seems to bo a very hazy notion in the minds of some who are not connected with farming of the possibilities of large returns to bo dtiived from the land. I was once asked by a gentleman who was anxious to invest a considerable amount of money in the South Islam 1 , of Nety Zealand, what income lie could reasonably expect from such investments. Tile gentleman Juul been brought up to mercantile pursuits, and did not know anything about fanning. I replied that all my friend could expect in bis lifetime would he to put all his work, all his capital, and all that lie earned off the land into it; but he need not expect a settled income My friend did not take up the land. That is the individual experience of most farmers; but they to lend to the Government on sinh a frozen security as was offered lor a 66 years’ term. “What do you think, Mr. McQ men, of the £50,000 limit of unimproved value?” In order to meet the demand for land for closer settlement iye brought the Lands for Settlement Act into existence. It has produced sufficient hnul for the purpose. In the South wo. have also had a number of large estates cut up by their owners. These lands were only acquired or put on the market when there was a demand for them, so that the market was not disorganised and the value of the land was not depreciated, Under the lien- principle proposed, -however, a certain quantity of land has to be put upon the market within n given time, whether there is a demand for jt or not. Now, as everyone knows, the value of a commodity is governed by the question of supply and demand, and if we force more land into the market than the demand justifies, down will go tlie price. Then those who are compelled to sell under the new conditions may be forced to take ruinous prices, and a ■ depression of values will sot in, This might be all very well if it were only to affect tho I big'man with £50,1)00 of unimproved value, for none of us may have any sympathy for such a big fellow; but if tlie. value of that man’s land is affected, so will the value of all land in the colony bo affected, Ir all lands are reduced in value, as they must be under conditions of oyer-supply, this will affect the margin of safety required by the mortgagee. To those unfortunate enough to have mortgages upon their holdings this will bo a matter of considerable importance, for the mortgage may call up his mouey or call upon the mortgagor to make provision'.to bring the margin of safety to the proper limit. The only way in which the mortgagor will be able to do this may be by going into the money market with a second mortgage If lie succeeds in getting it,which is problematical, lie will have to pay avory high rate of interest for it. The fact is that anything that is done to depreciate- the value of securities which the farmer lias to offer to tlie money-lender, tho worse it is for the colony as a w.liolp, ft is consequently in tlie interests of the country to maintain a staple value for all securities, and it is a cruel public wrong to dp anything that will endanger tlie securities of the unfortunate borrower. We may have no sympathy to waste on the capitalist, but if we do anything to damage- hint it recoils upon the borrower. Now, the demand for land, and its value, are affected by tho prices of produce. In a series of seasons when the price of produce is high tho value of land is correspondingly high; and while low prices obtain, laud values are depressed. .We have had a succession of goods years, and the demand for land has been great; but human experience has shown that periods of depression invariably follow those of great activity, and we cannot shut our eyes' to tin’s fact, If large areas of land are forced upon the’ market in districts where there is no imnieI diato .demand for it, especially in dull times, the rush downward in values would be very great. In tlie i past the requirements of settlement have been fairly well met. It i« admitted by all that the big holder must give place to the small man, hut in the past, 1 under the Lands for Settlement Act, when we have gone to a landholder to treat with him for his land we have brought a' buyer with us. Under this new proposal we not only <lo not intend to bring a buyer, but propose to compel the large landholder to sell, refusing him a .selection of buyers by precluding him from selling to certain parties.: We thus impose conditions neither specified nor implied in the contract —in other words, wo break faith with: him. When the colony sold those lands it did so under certain contract- conditions. The owner couhl fell them wholly or partly to anyone j who chose to buy, or do with them as he liked. We now "break faith" with him by telling him that he shall only sell to certain people, and we offer no compensation for loss of rights. This variation froiff contract conditions applies to ,or affects, every freeholder in New .Zealand. .No one could sell his land, however little he had, to a person -who had £l-5,000 worth, or even a great deal less in many cases, so that there is no justification for telling freehold farmers the Bill does not tqiich or damage them as freeholders;

“What in your opinion, Alcluoon, of the proposal »I ,*>»<» k 1 ]3? ngarding rohrfcKHges?'’ <„ Tlio Act provides that a mortgage in realise o hliis sec-nnty. 1.0-cttj. only to the Court *v>r am.uon.y to oil,‘at any rate ho e.ui obtain a ransfor, and take pease.-sion 01. u;, uoporty. H, however, no saloon fleeted within two .yearn, ano it h-!! einains unsold to a log >1 huyei, ...w- , q nmsfer will be eancollj.nl. '.. i iot appear to whom i "'m, ,l,en belong- it is to im ppo , • hat the State will resume i... ' i irovision eill also have «<•>« • nuking money doayt-i*, "eeau .; ’ i 1101 will linv<' '•'> P| ' - ' ' Iftlf h’y giving lcsi Hhera l t«rm.s. ; s a most unfair provision. '.-e . i loprossion lie hi existence. « - ■ impossible (iurin//, tlu> , c»M> y ‘ u " secure tiie sale of any, par.,icuh’ i t J ■ ;-* I,l‘j’tv at a, price wliicn wotik! i c*i’ bli(3 amount of money ijive;*iAui upon it. Look, for instance, at the niiuo; years which the Lank oj iN<’W /i ■. land Assets Realisation Hoard have. Pool! engaged in realising tlio proiio'tios of the hank. Apply the two years’ rule to them and to other loan companies wo know of, and oonsir.or wiiat would have been the results, -ill these points are matters to he considered. . , , , ~ “Do you cfoisider, Air. MeQuoo.n, tliat the Land for Settlements ,>.ct provides snflicient machinery to’noquire land for closer sottleim n,.r We have found, as a rule, rhnt , for settlement can he procure)i ■ there is a local demand lor it. ■ is all important matter, cause i> ; has kept the young peep.e in j neighborhood of their parents. < have been hived oil, ns it wore, ay. ; obtained holdings ' near t! ><c • homes. They have ).< < u <•:<i r.,i;ei j a system of farming under cum no conditions with which they are :u-. i- . tomed, have been enabled lo | the experience oi their own .cm and are olton assisted by. tin* ( - sight and guidance or their parents. They also have had the advantage pi the use of their parents’ teams in many cases in making a start ,and, if justified in doing so, the old people have advanced them capital. All these advantages could not he expected from the new proposals, tor the land to be thrown open under tlt» TO) ,000 limit is not evenly situated all over New Zealand. Young people going from one district to another will be working under' a great disadvantage, and their farming experience ,which is really a cqiomH asset, will he lost. Even ■experienced farmers, who change from one -Ms trict to another with dine rent mii:m- j tie conditions, malco serious mid?- 1 - j This is caused by not taking auia.u-i tage of local experience. c cannot expect the young people to he .an.wiser than their elders, and we new no right to run the risk m wasting a valuable colonial asset. “.Do von think, Mr. . -*-cQuc.m, that there is any justification for t.io erv - being raised that the objection to' the Land Bill arises from capitalists and land speculators.'’ There cannot he any truth m in is statement. There are at present no land speculators, at least that I kmw of, taking any part in the discussion. I have been moving amongst ins small farmers a great deal of late, and can say that the agitation against the Bill rises very largely from them. No doubt there are others besides the farmers opposed to it; everyone'who has sufficient intelligence to seo.wluis the Bill wuld. lead to, and is interested in the prosperity ot the country, will oppose the Bill. “Do you think, Mr. McQueen, that there is very much difference m the value of a security ot the lease m perpetuity as compared. with, occupation with right of purchase— Mr. McQueen said lie did, and tnen described a case which came under Ins notice in the North Island in which a farmer wlio had converted us o.r.p. into a l.i.p. found when too la to took ho would require to pay 2 per cent, more interest for monetary accommodation than ho would have ban to uo if lie had retained liis old title. “Will you kindly express your opinion of the probable effect on the future of our colony if the provisions of the Bill (ii'ii made law?” It seems to me from the experience of a lifetime that the desire/or a freehold piece of land is bred m the bone of the British people, especially those who come from a race of farmers. I can hold no other opinion, for I have seen it in all classes ot the community. The farmer who owns the fee simple of his land is willm„ to spend his life on it, to lay out aH his cpaital upon it, and then alter m has brought it to the highest state of fertility that lie possibly can, he will begin to ornament it and to thus expend on his holding what he can novor hope to recover from u m cash. The man who has worked for his land, who has saved up shilling by shilling until he has paid for it, will always, think more of that land than liis children who will inherit it from him, hut who have not rolled and struggled for it as he has done. IVliat is the case of the tenant? Land is not- the same thing to. him; it is merely a something to be made use of as a means of obtaining the greatest amount of profit with the leastamount of expenditure. The geographical position of these islands is such that sooner or later we may havp to repel invaders from China nr Japan. Who arc. most likely to successfully repel these invaders—the tenant farmer or the small freeholder? I will pin my faith on the free-, holders, who will fight for hearth and homo while the last drop of their blood remains. Why should the tenaut fight for his landlord’s property? He might do it as a mercenary or from compulsion; but never as he would do if it were his own. In view of the possibility of our having some day to repel tholnvader, let us adopt an attractive policy of land settlement, so as to get our country quickly peopled. Don’t slam the door in. the face of tlio very best class of immigrants by telling them that we will only accept them as State tenants and 'sole tax producers. The freehold system of land tenure- has stood tho test of time, it is the up-to-date system which obtains in every ciyiiised country in the world. Tlio system has been attacked often by certain theorists who talk eloquently about tho brotherhood of man and tho common right to the.use of the earth and tlio air. This kind of people wo have got here —we have one in Lyttelton ; ‘we know of a good few more. But tlioy are not to bo found in the back blocks —not they. No, thank you! It strikes mo that a spell of Work on .a North Island bush or swamp selection, without roads to market, would turn them into good, useful, active members of the Farmers’ Union, cursing the Land Bill they now bless. There are many attractions tending to draw our young people off the land into the "towns. If we would counteract these wo must give greater inducements to people to go into vhe back blocks to e,, pm-j ■ coring work. To what extent would the proposals of the Land Bill heir, ‘ hero? The articles appearing from I time to time on the Land Bill and ; its opponents in a section of tho pub'- ! he press have mostly been written on the principle adopted when a case h bad. You have no case,” wrote the K. re . B << Dan O’Connell; “abuse the plaintiff s atternpy.” Abuse, vilification, and misrepresentation have been freely indulged'in—a - mg of cuttle-fish torpedoes •“ iU” opponents with the view of -crontnm obscurity in all we get from the socalled loaders of public opinion, iusteajl of honest discussion, on the i merits of the question. Then there: are what might bo termed the*penal .l.iuses of the Bill, which are wholly : vpphcable to country lands and their nviiers. These owners .are'limited an to selling and also as- to who their and shall he sold to, whereas in tho i ; °wns. a landholder may sell to anyme who will buy. The Bill also iih- . loses conditions us to residence, etc.-. ; ipcni bona fide settlers, but gives i ( light to tlie people in towns to select i!Ountry lauds, it. may be for a couiiry residence, without; these restricions, or with modified restrictions as he Governor-in-Couucfl mav dociuo he owner of town lands is to be gireik decided advantage over liis country rotlier. Any person who mav hai> en to own £IOO,OOO worth-oi' town md and £15,000 worth of country ind on the passing of .the Act, mav | mthnip to hold both lands aider- i | ards. I believe that the owner of :IB lis land could also receive S'Vlikmxd - lid by bequest. Tliis is- a difheeration in favor of the townsman oi ; most unfair kind,