THE LAND BILL.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2205, 8 October 1907, Page 1

THE LAND BILL.

SOME DRASTIC CLAUSES

MR. MASSEY INTERVIEWED

(Special to Times.) WELLINGTON, Oct. 7. The division-list on. the second reading of tho Land Bill, owing to the very late hour at which it was taken, cannot bo regarded as indicating the full measure of the opposition, to it. S'omo of tho Government supporters who did not stay till' the end state tiliat they would, had they been present, have votod against the Bill. In tho final stages of tho discussion the House did not-present a very edifying spectacle. For • long periods there was not even a quorum present. At 20 minutes to 2 a .an. there were only 13 members in the Chamber, and of these six wore lying fall length, most of them, asleep, on their benches. It was not till lialfpaat 3 in tlio morning that tho division was taken.

COMPULSORY ACQUISITION. ' With a view to ascertaining which principles of tho new measure are likely to moot with the most opposition, I sought an interview with Mr. Massey. “One of my most Serious objections to the Bill,” ho said, “is ill connection with clause 66, which in its present form provides that the Government mav take land compulsorily at the taxing value plus 10 per cent., tho value to ho fixed in exa.ctlv tho same way as at present — by a valuer of tho Government Valuation Department. That is praoticaQlv Saying that tho buyer wilf fix the price. Besides being absolutely wrong in principle, the effect will be that instead of being anxious to keep values down to a. reasonable amount, farmers will submit to paying taxation and local rates on unfair vacillations naitiher tli-an run any rusk

in connection with the compulsory taking of their land. In this way the revenue will be increased, and probably that is intended. The clause is a very cunningly devised one, and it is evidently intended to placo the landowners at the mercy of the powers that be, which is not a very enviable position, when, it is remembered that the single-tax element is represented in the present Cabinet. There is another clause which, taken in conjunction with, clause 66, is a. very objectionable one —clause 69, which provides that land may be taken compulsorily down to 50 acre 3 within 15 miles of any borough, for the purpose of providing workers’ homes. The term ‘workers’ homes’ is a very coriiprehensivo ono, and could be twisted, to mean a great deal more than was originally intended, or at ally time that tho opportunity offered Parliament might bo induced to strike ou.t the words referred to, and then the land'of. every farmer of over 50 acres within 15 miles of any borough would be liable to political pressure so as to have it taken- compulsorily. That is the position wo are'getting into, and 1 it is for the people most concerned to say whether this sort of thing is to bo continued or not.”

LAND FOR SETTLEMENTS LANDS. “Thus,” continued Mr. Massey, “I think that the proposal to make the tenure of land acquired under rthe Land for Settlements Act a 33 years’ renewable lease with revaluation at the end of eacli term a decidedly retrograde step, and one that will not commend itiself to intending settlers. Tire lease-in-perpetuity has its drawbacks, but I havo no hesitation in s lyin'* that it is preferable to the proposed 33 years’ lease. Farms are not made in a diay, or a year, or in ten years, and the idea uppermost in the mind- of a settler with a 33 years’ lease will he that he is probably or possibly making improvements for someone outside of his own family to enjoy. lam strongly of opinion that the remedy for all these troubles is to give the tenants _ the right of purchase, but that is just the proposal to which Messrs. McNab, Fowlds, Laurensoii, and Co. are bitterly opposed, and in the meantime these gentlemen are oil top with a majority behind them.”

FREEHOLD FOR CROWN TENANTS. “The policy in last year’s Bill,” said Mr. Massey, “with regard to tilio option of freehold has been very considerably modified,, but tibe conditions under 1 which it is now proposed to grant the freehold to tenants holding land under lease-iil-perpetu-ity are unfair and unjust, and I be-lie-vo are really intended to make compliance therewith as difficult ias possible. You may bo quite sure that the freehold party in Parliament will do everything possible to niodlif 1 tho more objectionable proposals 1 , 'bait just at present it is impossible to say wlrat the Bill will be when it gets through to its third reading.”