THE LAND BILL.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2203, 5 October 1907, Page 2

THE LAND BILL.

DISCUSSED IN THE HOUSE. SOME NEW PROPOSALS. SUBJECTION BY EXHAUSTION. Press Association. WELLINGTON, Oct. 4. Ai'toi' midnight on Thursday, Mr. Mandor claimed that a number of suggestions made from tho Opposition sido of tho Houso had been embodied in the Bill. Mo urged that an incentive should bo givon to settlers to go into tho backblocks by making it easier to obtain the freehold. On the motion of Mr. Okey tbo Houso adjourned at 0.35 a.m. When tho Houso of Representatives met at 2.30 p.m. to-day, Mr. Okoy continued tho debate on tho second reading of tho Land Laws Amendment Bill. A SOUTH ISLAND MEASURE. Ho stated that many members, wore pledged to vote for the freehold, but bo did nob think they were satisfied with tho freehold provisions under tho Bill, which were hedged about with conditions that made it practically impossible for a leaseholder to acquiro tho freehold. Ho contended that the proposals of tho Bill constituted it a South Island measuro, and would not suit tho requirements of settlors iu tho North Island. Ho urged that leaseholders should bo allowed to secure tho freehold at tho original valuo plus one per cent, but to expect that these settlors would apply for tlio freehold at the present value was ridiculous, and tho provisions might as well havo been left out of tho Bill. LIBERAL PARTY ENDANGERED. Mr. Duncan said he did not agree witli the change in the Land for Settlements system under this Bill, for reasons which ho would enumerate in committee. He had no hesitation in saying that tho land laws originated by Sir John McKenzie wore the foundation of the Government’s large majority, and ho thought tho Minister was wrong in making an alteration in the Land for Settlements section. Ho added that it was impossible to •meet the varying requirements of tho various districts in one Bill, and ho urged that it should be made more elastic in operation. Ho believed that a regulation could be made to empower the Minister to vary tlio conditions of tlio Land for Settlements section to suit the various districts. He contended that the member for Lyttelton and the “Lyttelton Times” bad done more to raiso the agitation for the freehold than anything elso. Continuing, ho contended that tho member for Grey Lynn, who was a Single Taxer, had taken good care to see that the increased taxation did not fall on tho towns and cities. SETTING SETTLERS AT EACH OTHER’S THROATS.

Mr. Lewis congratulated the Minister on having done tardy justice to members of the Opposition, who had been much maligned during the past few years when advocating the right to the freehold. He added that the desire of tho Minister appeared to be that in order to prevent the lease-in-perpetuity holders increasing to such an extent that the Government couTu not resist their demands, the various Crown tenants should be split up into a number of parties all hostile to each other. Continuing, he maintained that compulsory residence on a lease for two years before the lessee was entitled to transfer his lease would go a long way to prevent speculation iu land. “UNEARNED” INCREMENT.

Mr. Jennings congratulated the Minister on the change he had made from the Bill of last year, which was distinctly for the betterment of the people who desired to settle on the lands of tho Dominion. The Minister, he said, had displayed a spirit, of goodwill, and the unanimity which seemed to prevail in connection with the Bill augured well for its success. He dwelt on tlie disabilities tinder which settlers in the North Island labored in cannection with native . land leases, remarking that nobody ‘.but the settlers themselves could rea- : lise tho disadvantages. He urged \that settlers who suffered the hardships of tlio baekhlocks were entitled '-.to any increment which might arise /through the progress of settlement.

‘ O.R.P. THE BEST TENURE. Ml'. Ross expressed his dissatisfaction with tho 33 years’ lease, and he .did not think anyone would be satis‘fied with it. Ho contended that a person who held a 999 years’ lease had the full right to the increased value of the lease, and no leaseholder in perpetuity would feel disposed to convert his leasehold or to pay the price, as set forth by tho Bill, of its present valuo to acquire the freehold. He characterised such an idea as utter nonsense. Ho contended that in granting the freehold to tenants at the original value it would be one of the best things that could happen to the country. Mr. fjymes urged that the full value of improvements should be conceded to the lessee when the lease was being valued for renewal. He added that he did not agree with those members who advocated a return to tho homestead system, as tho land that was left now was not fit for such a system. He contended that there was no such thing as unearned increment to which the State was entitled. All the State was entitled to was the rent. He contended that the best system of tenure the country ever had was 0.R.P., and it only needed a provision to enable tenants to pay off tho capital value of sums of £lO and upwards after tenants had occupied tho lease for ten years. UNFAIR DEBATE TACTICS.

Mr. Lang complained that Government members were not taking a fair part in the debate, which was being carried on mainly by Opposition members. Ho thought that the importance of the measure justified the people in expecting .that a Government member should follow each Opposition speaker, and m the present state of the parties he contended that two Government members should speak after each Opposition member. He strongly supported the freehold, which, lie said, was undoubtedly coming, no matter whether the present Ministry were prepared to grant it or not. He objected. to clause 66, which provides for compulsory acquisition of land at taxing value plus 10 per cent. TWO LEASEHOLD ADVOCATES. When tho Hpuso resumed at 7.30

p.m. Sir. jiisher spoke, Ho said lie believed that every Crown tenant of a leaso-in-jierpetuity .should he allowed to acquiro the freehold at an equitablo value, and expressed tho hope that members

would succeed in drafting a clause to this end. Ho quoted from speeches to show that some Ministers had expressed thenjsely.es as opposed to disposing of the freehold of any further Crown lands. He added that tho alterations from last year’s Bill had been adopted in a spirit of conciliation, so that now it was proposed to set apart nine million acres as leasehold and a similar amount as freehold. He admitted that it was an involved question, and he did not think they could get any two members of the House to agree on the land question, which was a vital one. He urged the Premier to reconsider tho question of .selling any more Crown lands. He went on to say that city members fully realised what disabilities people on tho land were under, and wero willing to extend their sympathy to them, but they expected fair treatment in return for

tho cities from country members. Mr. Laurenson, referring to Mr. Massey's remarks, said the lion, gentleman appeared to have no sense of proportion. He added that Mr. Massey confused Socialism with. Communism, whereas Socialism was ill no way Communism, but was tho embodiment of the new civilisation introduced by tho Great Socialist two thousand years ago, and ho maintained that the lion, gentleman failed to realise

that we were living in an ago of Socialism, and that the whole system of railways, post and telegraphs, educational an,d hospital systems were principles of Socialism. Proceeding, : 10 araue.d that settling a juan on the

land was so that ho could make a living on the land and not by selling land. Ho added that the dearer land became tho harder it became to make a living, and dearer land meant less wages. Ho contended that tbo reason why settlers had to go out to tlie verge of civilisation was because of land-grabbing monopolists, who were supported by members of the Opposition, who then had tho effrontery to accuse members on that sido of the Houso of lack of sympathy for men in tho back-blocks. Ho contended that a man who went into the back-blocks should bo exempted from paying rent foT tho first year. Tho Bill itself did not go far enough. Ho had hoped that not another acre of Crown land would have been disposed of, but ho recognised that every step of advancement had to be reached by compromise. The leaseholders had given away half their programme. Ho hoped thefreeliolders would como tho other half. Objection bad been taken to clause 66, but what had been tho history of the purchase of estates by tho Government. For eight estates alone tho Government had paid £179,388 more than tho land tax valuo was, or an average excess of £22,417 for each estate. The prico paid exceeded the land tax valuation by £18,761. Ho went on to say that 3648 sottlers were settled on 959,402 acres and 27,504 on 34,548,437 acres, or 63,972 settled on 35,507,889 acres. Proceeding, he said that in America 26 per cent, of tho farmers were tenant farmers. In France the percentage of tenant farmers was 29, Germany 15, England 50, Scotland 75, and Ireland 93 per cent. In New Zealand holdings of one acre and upwards were 699,942, and owners of land of one acre and over 52,069, so that in round figures 27 per cent, of our farmers were tenant fanners. In England one man in two farmed his own land. In Scotland one in four, and in Ireland one in sixteen. Mr. Lauren son, in refuting the contention tint lands were heavily taxed in New Zealand, quoted figures to show that taxation in Great Britain was equal to 8.3 per cent., whilst in New Zealand the rate was only 4.8 on the output. He contended that tho present values of land was depopulating the country districts and increasing the populations of the towns, which tended to poverty and slums. He quoted figures to show that the percentage of increase in 1891 was higher in cities than in the country. POPULATING THE COUNTRY. Mr. T. Mackenzie deplored that the population in some of the. country districts w!is not increasing. He contended that sottlers would not go into the back-blocks in tho face of tho single-tax agitation that was rife, hut if they were given the option of acquiring the freehold settlers would be found willing to go out into the back parts of till© colony. He went on to say that the English sj-stem of tenure was driving tho people out of the country, whilst France, with its system of small divisions, was cultivated by its farmers to the highest degree. He did not think that lands should be in the position of being compulsorily acquired at 10 per cent, above their taxing valuation, but lie believed that more business capacity should be infused into the Purchase Board, and he contended that it was for lack of this business capacity that this clause was included in the Bill. He refuted Mr. Laurenson’s remark regarding the effect of land values on wages. He urged that the Government should cease publishing Socialistic literature, contending that in the Labor Journal, published at the cost of the Government, had appeared theories of Henry George on land matters. Referring fo land purchases, he said properties all over the colony had been offered, and with what miserable results? So far as the provisions in the Bill limiting the holding of land were concerned, he did not know whether the present proposals went far enough. Sheep country lands should be regrassed and the optional system established. Otago . needed these things. FREEHOLD WILL COMBAT

SOCIALISM. , Mr. Jas. Allen quoted from various Socialist authorities to show, that Socialism was opposed to domestic ties and the Church. He went on to say that the Opposition was not supporting land monopoly, but were strongly in favor of small farmers, as if Socialism was to be fought successfully it would be by creating a number of small farmers. He argued that Socialism would not tend to the well-being of the community. Continuing, he said that Sir John MacKenzie had great faith in the 999 years’ lease, and made no attempt to remove it from tlie Statute Book. Iu fact he always voted against anv attempt to alter it. As to the differentiation that was to be made between ordinary Crown lands and Land for Settlements lands, he could see no difference between the lands won from the natives by the sword and those that were re-purch-ased from those who had acquired ii in the ordinary way in vogue when the land was open to purchase.

OPTIONAL SYSTEM DEFENDED. Mr. Major characterised Mr. Laureason as a fiery optimist. Speaking as a freeholder, ho argued that the tenant under the optional system was in a happy position. He added that no sound argument had been made against the contention that lessees-in-penpetnity should have the freehold at the original value. A YES-NO FREEHOLDER. Mr. Hornsby quoted writings of Socialists and divines to controvert Mr. James Allen’s contention that Socialism was subversive of the family tie and opposed to the Church. [ Dealing with Bill, lie advocated t freehold with limited area. He added that if he could he would prevent a single acre of the remaining Crown lands from being alienated. He was in favor of the Crown tenants obtaining the freehold at the original value. A LIMITATION SUPPORTER, Mr. Hogg contended that the State ought never to have parted with its interest in tlio land, but limitation of tenure should bo properly caried out. It would remove one of his chief objections to the freehold. He went on to speak in favor of the freehold, contending that the land of every country was the property of the people, and the Government were the trustees for the people. One disadvantage of freehold was that a man could sell his farm and turn his sons and daughters out who had worked for his benefit. He added that the mortgage system under the old style of money-lenders was slavery. The farmer was a serf, and the money lender practically a slave-owner.

A SHORTER LEASE Sir. Win. Steward, whilst generally supporting the Bill, said when it was in committee ho would move to reduco the term of-leaso from 66 years to 33 years.

PRESS COMMENT.

A NEW KIND OF FREEHOLD

(Special to Times.) WELLINGTON, Oct. 4. The surprise of last night’s debate was tho announcement by the -Minister for Lands that he still lias some new clauses for this much-dis-icussed Bill up li.is sleeve. It is held • that these new clauses should have been brought down at an earlier stage, so that they might have been discussed by the Lands Committee, '™ o: m tho Bill was referred. 1 ho Dominion,” referring to the i 1 /.™' proposal to-day, says:—“The j JliM contains a provision under u ]IT, b ■a lesseo-iu-penpcituit-y may obtain the fee snmple of this holding, but since the Bill was brought down the Gov- I eminent has been overcome with fear I lest such a lessee may, upon paying I the price and taking possession of I his land as a free and independent-1 freeholder, become so' free and inde-1 :i elide lit as to dispose of his holding I ike other free men who have not I served _ a term as a Crown tenant | chrysalis. Accordingly, tho Govern-1 ment proposes to givo the converting I leaseholder such a title that h© will I not be able to sell his laud to any I

person who already owns 640 acres Ho may obtain freehold, that is to say, but it will bo branded with a kind of scarlet letter. It will not be as other land, and its ownor, though he has paid honestly for it, will not bo as other owners. If bo sells it tho Registrar will not register tho transfer unless tlio new purchaser' signs a declaration that ho already possesses less than 640 acres of first-class land. Accidents may happen, however, and a. man possessing 640 acres may purchase and obtain registration of tbo title of 300 acres, holding that his neighbor has bought from the Crown. In that case tho Supreme Court may bo invoked, and may decree that the purchaser shall divest himself of his purchase, and in the ©vent of noncompliance with the decree may inflict ‘a penalty’ upon the contumacious opponent of tho new doctrine -that tiie time has come to make certain kinds of land purchase a penal offence. It is fitting enough that a Government that one day introduces retrospective legislation or of a penal character, should next day seek to introduce the principle that a- vendor should retain the right of direction over that which he Belle. It will not bo overlooked, wo hope, that tho proposal is not merely a beginning, but is almost the full bloom of tho principle that no man who holds 640 acres of first-class land shall bo free to increase his holding—a proposal twice as drastic as the ‘£15,000 limit’ of last year’s Bill.”

The “Post,” after referring to the reversal of policy by which L.I.P. holders are now to have the right-of purchase, says :—“The Minister for Lands having made a false step promises to return in his tracks. His true policy is to own his error and disoard class 19. If the holder of a lease-in-perpetuity will not accept in exchange the 66 years’ renewable lease which he is offered by clause 18 there are other ways of dealing with him. Having injudiciously given a perpetual leaseholder the option of the freehold the Minister for Lands now proposes to limit a purchaser's title to the new freehold. Ho is not to-sell his property to anybody who already owns 640 acres of first-class land, 2000 acres of second-class, or 5000 acres of third-class. If the buver subsequently acquires other land the disqualification will still be operative. In fact there will be a perpetual blot on the title, or, as the Minister phrased it, ‘a limitation following down the title through all time.’ An Opposition member said pertinently that this is bondhold, not freehold.”

OUR SPECIAL WIRE.

THE SEDDON ADMINISTRATION’S INTENTIONS.

SPEECH BY MR DUNCAN.

Special to Times. WELLINGTON, Oct. 4. The debate on the Land Bill was resumed this afternoon by Mr. Okey, who made a forcible speech from the freehold point of view. He was followed by the Hon. Mr. Duncan, ex-Minister for Lands, and the House at once pricked up its ears when Mr. Duncan began to speak of the contemplated amendments of the Land Act by the Seddon Cabinet. The contemplated amendments were held over as the Premier left for Australia, but they had tho heads of the various suggested amendments and a large portion of the new Bill had even then been drafted. Mr. McNab: Many of them ore your own clauses. _ Mr. Duncan: I know they are. He went on to say that the late Mr. McKenzie had his (Mr. Duncan’s) concurrence and advice in his alteration of the land legislation of New Zealand. The alteration was the foundation of the large majority that came on to' the Liberal side in the House. He believed, the present Minister was wrong in interfering with the 999 years’ lease, and he expressed the belief that the fewer restrictions there were in connection with the laud laws the better it would be. (Hear, hear.) Any sudden change was a mistake, as there was nothing in the world so easily destroyed as the value of land.. That was borne in upon the Dominion at the present time. The difficulty was accentuated by the differences in quality of the lands of the colony. “If,” he added amid much laughter, “you don’t be careful in handling your land it will be better for you to go and be a stump orator at a lamp-post.” In Auckland, for instance, though they had exceptionally good land they would have to be very careful in regard to the manuring of it. He contended that it was the “Lyttelton Times” that by its attitude on the land question had created the demand for the freehold. “The ‘Lyttelton Times,’” he continued, “is the greatest rag in the country on land legislation. (Laughter.) The present editor’s father knew a great deal about land and land troubles* but it .does not trouble the present editor ” He would tell the editor of the “Lyttelton Times” and his great orator in the House, the member for Lyttelton—(laughter)^ —that they both had done more to raise this cry of freehold than anything that had happened in the colony. (Hear, hear.) Mr. Duncan caused considerable' amusement- by a reference to “My friend, the sin«detaxer, Mr. Fowlds.” It was all very well for that gentleman from Queen Street to tell them that land should pay all the taxes. ;* ■. .

Mr. Fowlds: That is where .all land value is.

Mr. Duncan: “But you took good care to see all the entire taxation was kept outside towns. (Much laughter.) There will, however, be more trouble yet, and there will be a tax m the towns similar to the tax in the country.” He held that the prescut- Graduated Tax Bill was worse than tlie original Bill introduced by Mr. McJsab

Mr. Lewis pointed out that tho I Government proposals in tho Bill would set 66 years, the 99 years, and the 33 years’ tenants against each otiier lie slmwed the necessity for a better definition of improvementsso that settlers might receive justice at the end of their terms of lease. I ersoually, 'he was getting very tired of a state Of affairs in which so few peoxilo took any interest in a public measure that did not directly concern themselves, and the only -wav i ■ remedy that was by extending "the injunous measures that were brought foiward so that as many people as possible would bo affected by them THE MINISTRY’S INCONSISTENT CIES.

lir '\ fter th y dilmor adjournment, Mr. I 1 ishor spoke, and devoted himself I largely to pointing out the iucousisI tencics of Minsters in respect to their 1 n n u>iw° l Cy i Minister for Labor I ‘S 19u5 bad said that if ho were not I Chairman °f Committees ho would I sit there for a month to prevent auI i° f c s°"’» lands being sold I k^ U i St r r f< ? r J ustleG bad said I ~ Relieved that all the land 7™. belong to the State, whilst I tile Minister for Education in one of I i .y?- speeches in the South had said, 1 i? ancy the absurd idea of balancing I a piece of good land against a piece lof money.” Yet tho Ministry now I proposed to balance 9,000,000 acres I of land against a piece of money. I Then again the Attorney-General had I said at Palmerston South that there I must be a cessation of tho sale of I Crown lands. To-day the Ministry | was proposing to sell 9,000,000 acres. [ Tho Cabinet seemed to bo as divided on the laud question as it was possible for any Ministry to bo divided Mr. Fisher went on to say that lie did ■ u . ot believe in a Single Taxer being elevated to the Ministry. The Minister of Education had> to do one of tvo things. He must leave the rinC ™. lld rem ? m to his principles or remain m the Oabinoffoo C t t Mr l> F- Principles under '• Fisher quoted the maniwbirih )3 yy ho Sln Sle Tax League stated that the League could \VhA c /; p t the limitation proposal. what happened 3111 ' ° isSUed> B_Mr. Massey: They dropped their Fisher: Yes. I fancy I can see tno Minister for Education running up to the Minister for Land? wit-J^

this manifesto, and saying, ‘you must drop tho limitation proposals, and when next tho Bill was introduced tho limitations woro gone. It was now proposed to put them back again, so that evidently some further influence had again boon at work.

THE PROMISED LAND OF SOCIAL REFORM. Mr. Fishor was followed by Mr. Laureuson, who said that Mr MeNnb was tbo man who was going to lead them into tbo promised land of social reform. Tho member for Lyttelton proceeded to give a definition of socialism from the Encyclopedia Britannica and various dictionaries. In regard to tbo prico of land bo held that tbo cheaper tlio prico of land tbo better it was for tho country. (Cries of Nol) Ho maintained that it was so because dear land meant low wages, and cheap land meant high wages. Ho maintained that it was not tho “Lyttolton Times” but tho Government, who, in 1900, proposed to give a rebato of rout to Crown tenants, who created tho cry for tho freehold. Tho present Minister for Lands and others stonewalled that proposal night and day, but at last agreed to a compromise. That, however, was tho first step towards tho breaking up of tho land settlement policy of tho colony. As to the sneeriug remarks of the Hon, Mr. Duncan against tho ‘‘Lyttelton Times,” ho said that- that journal was responsible for Canterbury having sent so many Radicals into Parliament. It had always been in favor of the elevation of woman, humanity in connection with tho protection of children, and for tho rights of tho masses against tho classes.