THE LAND BILL.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2029, 14 March 1907, Page 4

THE LAND BILL.

In tho course of an article on tho Land Bill the Farmers’ Weekly statos: — AN ILLOGICAL CONTENTION. It is not a very difficult matter, contrasting Sir Joseph Ward’s statements with those of his lioutonant, tho Ministor for Lands, to show that the Government is adopting an wholly illogical attitude on tho land quostion. Tho Premior virtually tells thoso who object to tho Ministerial policy that there is no need to shoot; tho Government is quito prepared to go down. Tho attitude thus adopted towards a question of tho gravest moment is neither wise nor statesmanlike. But Sir Joseph. Ward is too good a politician and too wary a tactician to adopt an irreconcibable attitude in the face of an hostile majority, and* although it has boon claimed that tho Government could havo carried tho Land Bill, as it loft tho hands of the Lands Committee by a majority of two or three votes in tho House of Representatives, the Premier recognised that public opinion was largely against the measure, and that the reaction which would set in, did it become law, might spell disaster' to tho Government. It is futile to claim that a Bill which absolutely ends tho freehold, so far as Crown lands are concerned, is other than an attack upon tho freehold. Nor can Ministers logically claim, in Sir Joseph’s words, that the Government Bill does not take away tho freehold, for under the existing law tho settler who takes up lands which may be open for selection may do so under the occuption with the right of purchase tenure. The GG years renewable lease is tho nearest approach to the freehold which will be obtainable under Mr McNab’s Bill, should it become law. To say, therefore, that the action of the Government in withdrawing all Crown lands from selection on other than leasehold conditions, is not an attack on the freehold is absurd.

THE LIMITATION PROPOSALS. No one having the interests of settlement at heart, desires to uphold the aggregation of largo estates in the hands of a few individuals. But there are right and wrong methods of action in limiting tho area of such estates. Under no circumstances should the laws of this colony spell repudiation and confiscation. The State has allowed these estates to accumulate in the hands of a few individuals, and has granted them the fee-simple of the lands they occupy. It may ’ reasonably refuse to allow further aggregations, and has every right to set a limit upon the area of land which uy one man should bo permitted to occupy in tho future. It may also refuse to transfer, or rather register transfers of property above a certain value to any one individual. But to claim, as Mr McNab’s Bill does, that tho holders of lands, the unimproved value of which exceeds a certain amount, shall be arbitrarily dispossessed of the excess value of their estates is carrying matters too far. Once admit tho justice of such a claim and a precedent is established, which may and will be acted upon again and again to tho manifest disadvantage of the smaller holder. If the Government is in earnest in its desire to throw open lands for settlement, it may easily do so on a remunerative basis by revising its methods of dealing with lands resumed for settlement.- Th e trouble is that the Government borrows to purchaso Estates, which are held as Crq- TO | aJK ls and leased on a 4 per cent, rental. If when they were cut up the land was sold outright, either on a cash basis or deferred payments, a much smaller capital would suffice for the carrying out of the lands for settlement policy, and tho money received from the sale of one estate could be used for the purchase of others, so that wo should not need to borrow from £500,000 to £750,000 per annum as we are doing for lands for settlement purposes. Under its Closer Settlement Act the Victorian Government reserves lands for settlement, and sells them right out to the manifest advantage of the settler. Development on similar lines in this colony should case the position ; but with so many Single Tax and Socialistic faddists in the Government camp, it is to bo foared such a commonsense solution of the difficulty of providing lands for settlement is not likely to be seriously entertained by the Minister for Lands and bis " colleagues, although it points the easiest way out.