THE LAND BILL.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2206, 9 October 1907, Page 2

THE LAND BILL.

CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE. A SPIRITED DEBATE. ACQUIRING THE FREEHOLD. MOTION BY MR. MASSEY. - (Special to Times.) AVELLINGTON. Oct 8. In regard to tho conditions on which a lessee-in-porpetuity may acquire tho freehold, Mr. Massey has given notice of the following new clause in place of Mr. McNab’s clauso 19, which applies only to ordinary Clown lands: — 1. A lessee-in-perpetuity of land under Part 111. or Part IV. of the principal Act shall, upon giving notice in writing to the Commissioner of his intention to purchase, be entitled to purchase the freehold of such land (subject to tho restriction hereinafter specified) if (a) the lessee shall at the time when ho gives such notice and at the time when ho completed the purchase have complied yvith nil the conditions of his lease as to improvements and residence ; (b) the lessee shall not at the time when ho gives such notice or at the time when lie completes the purchase be the owner of other lands sufficient to disqualify him under the provisions of section 96 of the principal Act from becoming the holder of lands comjirised in his lease; (c) the lessee shall pay to the Receiver of Land Revenue as the purchase money -for the freehold the capital value upon which the rental of 4 per centum per annum is computed as to the land comprised in this lease and .also a sum equal to the difference between 4 per centum and 5 per centum per annum upon such capital value for the term during which he has held the land on lease. 2.. Any such lessee may on any day appointed for payment of his rent pas. to the Receiver of Land Revenue any sum, being not less than one-tenth of tho capital value, in part payment of the purchase money for tho freehold of such land, and his future rent shall henceforth be proportionately reduced. 3. Upon payment in full of the purchase money, subject to tho. conditions aforesaid, such lessee will be entitled to a certificate of title under the Laud Transfer Act, 1885, for the freehold of the land comprised in the lease.

THE LEASE-IN-PERPETUITY.

ATTITUDE OF THE LATE JOHN McKenzie. - A REMARKABLE STATEMENT. WELLINGTON. Oct. 8. The House got into committee on the Land Bill early in the afternoon, but made very little progress. The Hon. Mr. Mills led off with an apposition amendment in favor of the lease-in-perpetuity. There was a great laugh when Mr. Tanner quoted a division list in which only a few years ago Mr. Mills had voted against the lease-in-perpe-tuity. Mr. Mills said he was a Minister then, and voted with the Ministry against his individual opinions. (Laughter.) An important statement was made by Mr Tanner, the member for Avon, who said that when the late Sir John AleKenzie first introduced his Land Bill in 1891 it contained no reference L o a 999 years’ lease. In the following j’ear, when the Bill was again mtroduced, the Government Whips were instructed to personally interview every member of the Government party, and ascertain whether they would agree to the. 999 years’ lease if it was inserted in the Bill. He (Mr. Tanner) said he well remembered the dramatic scene in. the House when Sir John, in referring to 'he Opposition criticism of his Bill, itated that lie would make the lease one for 999 years. Not understanding the position he (Mr. Tanner) wrote a note and sent it across the Chamber to the Minister, asking him whether he really meant that he would grant a lease for a thousand vears less one without revaluation. .Sir John scribbled a reply to this effect, “Yes, but it will only last till ’ after the next election. We will have it altered after that.” “I am very sorry,” said Mr. Tanner, “that I destroyed that scrap of paper, as it could have been evidence enough for anybody. Now you have only my word for it.” '

“That’s enough,” said an hon. member.

Mr. Buddo said that Sir John McKenzie’s first proposal was for a 50 years| lease, but he told him (the speaker) that- he was obliged to take' " a 999 years’ lease as it was the only one that it was possible to get through the House.

. Mr. Massey, speaking on the sub- : ject, said he could quite understand that the late Sir Jolm McKenzie did not favor the lease-in-perpetuity. He (Mr. Massey) became a member of the House in 1894, and in' 1895 he remembered the late Sir John McKenzie introduced his Fair Rent Bill which, if carried, would have had a disastrous effect on the lease-in-ner-petuity. 1 in sl /' 5? Is lamendment was lost by 40 to 20. The division list was as follows:—Ayes (20): J. Allen, Baume, . * Fj, aser > Greenslade, Hardy, Hernes, Hogg, Houston, Jennings, Lang. Lethbridge, T. Mackenzie. Malcolm, Mander Massey, Mills, Okey, Reid Remington, Ross. Noes (40): Aitken, Alison, Arnold, Barber, Barclay, Benuet Buddo, Carroll, Colvin, Dill lon, Elk Field, Fisher, Flatman, Cray, Guinness, Hanan, Hornsby Kaihau, Kidd, Laurenson, McGowan, McNab,Millar, Ngata, Parata, Po'a»d ’ Rutherford, Seddon, Sidey, Stall worthy, Stevens, Steward WHte’wS""- Ward ’

THE FIRST BRUSH ON THE FREEHOLD QUESTION.

A WARM DISCUSSION ON AN AMENDMENT.

WELLINGTON, Oct. 8. ■At J p m. the House was stall discussing clause 3 (the first clause of any co ilsc quence). moved an amendment with t-ho object of giving tfo every settler who takes up rural Crowii lands the right of purchase. Immediately the fa.t was in. the , ®*, a number of mem bore were evidently very uncomfortable, and some began, to make excuses for voting against the proposal. ° r ' Mr. Stevens was the first. He had always beep m favor of tho free!°'U> h® but he did not want to turn his Government out of office, so he would now vote with, them against air. Alison s amendment. :!Mr. W. Eraser expressed great surprise at Mr. Stevens’s declaration. Epitomised, he said, it meant, Much as I love the freehold I love the Government better.” 'Mr. Buddo also opposed the •• mendment. ■Mr.-Massey was surprised to hear tint Mr. Biiddo would oppose giving tho settlers the right to "purchase in terms of thus amendment. Ho spoke of repA'senta’ng small farmers, but in bis district (Canterbury) farmers had over and over again given as much for the goodwill of leasehold farms as would, under such a clause as this, have given them the freehold of their farms. It was evident tliait the Government supporters were’ - prepared to “shut their eves and open their mouths to take villa,t the ' Government- would give them.” Mr. ** Stevens’s speech, he held. suggest-c-i a difference not between the Government and the Opposition, but in tJic ranks of the Government party itself—between tho freeholders’ and the land natiomaUsers. They bad evidently arranged a compromise, “and here.” said Mr. Massey, seeing Mr., Ell sitting beside the' Prime Minister, “is the result. (Laughter.) Alongside the Premier is the leading hind nationaliser of this Parliament.” (More laughter.) “There,” lie added, “is an, object lesson. Tho position speaks for itself. The freeholders have given away nine million acres, and the lease-in-perpotu-rty for tjie 60 years’ lease, and Ifav^

gained nothing. The land natioirnl; isors have gained half what- tihej asked for. Next. year they will endeavor to get the other halt. Tho Premier polluted out tdiiAit All. Aitken. on tho Opposition side, was a leaseholder. Ho said thea-o were men supporting the leaseholders vlio were not land nation a Users, and as to itr. Ell, he was only showing liun a verv irut-cresting letter. Mr Jennings challenged the Munster for Lands and the Premier m regard to this issue, which, lie snmi. should go to the country- It haci never been before the country. > ■Mr. Allison : Hear, hear. 1 hey re

afraid to do that. At this stage the debate was pio ceeding with great keenness and considemblo excitement. On more than one occasion, when a speake - cd his seat after his ten minutes speech, four or five other members would jump to their feet and endeavor to catch the Chairman s eye. Each momber has the right in Committee to make four speeches of ten minutes on eaeli clause and amoncimout moved. . , Somo reninrks by Mr. Barclay about private landlordism and ruclvrented tenants roused Mr. Thomas Mackenzie. The mere fact that Mr. Barclay was supporting tho Gove rumen t in this matter showed, lie said, that they were not going so far 111 the freehold direction as was nccesEary. Ho (Mr. Mackenzie) did not want to see tho farmers under tlio heel of any landlord, either State or private. As a matter of fact, he added with vehemence, the State was often responsible for more atrocity towards its tenants than any private landowner.' , . Mr. L-aurenson : Rubbish, rubbish 1 Take care —you may be representing h town constituency yet. Mr. Mackenzie: No, I’ll never represent a town constituency. A man is returned for a city constituency in proportion to the nonsense hr talks. (Laughter.)

THE DISCUSSION. Press Association. WELLINGTON, Oct. 8. The House of Representatives this afternoon went into committeo on tho Land Laws Amendment Bill. At clause 3 jMr. Mills urged thai tho lease-in-perpetuity, which was instituted to prevent- tho aggregation of largo estates, was in tho best interests of close settlement. He added that where ono applicant applieu for freehold land seven applied foi leasehold-in-perpetuity. Ho contend ed that tho State was the best land lord for any man. Mr. Lang agreed with Mr. Mills proposal in so far as it was better tt retain tho lease-in-perpetuity. Messrs Okey and Mander supported tho freehold tenure. Mr. Okey. whilst a freeholder, was prepared t>. support the amendment in its present form. Mr. Hogg contended that tin lease-in-perpetuity had settled many men on the land. He regretted thai there was any intention to got rid o’ the system. Thousands of settler; owed their positions, which were ii many cases positions of independence to this form of lease, ancl though much might be said in favor of discontinuing the system on the grouno of revenue he contended that the first duty was to settle the people on thi land. Tho loase-in-perpetuity was i stepping-stone to prosperity, anc was the best thing that had ever beer offered to the working men of thi colony. Mr. Rutherford considered the day for lease-in-perpetuity had gone by He thought the renewable lease wouldprove of great benefit, both to the. private individual-and to the State, Mr. W. Fraser did not believe irj a terminable lease with re-valuation

Ho urged that what was desirable was to place men on the land with i fixture of tenure, but the Government desired to take from the man

holding the leas© the increased value which he had been the means 05 creating. He contended that thebest thing to give a man was the freehold, but the next best thing tc. the' freehold -was the lease-in-perpetu-. ity, and he was going to support the amendment. . Mr. Jennings did not agree With. the renewable lease, and would sum , ‘port the amendment. He contended that the tenure which was a strong! inducement to people going on thtj land was the occupation with right of purchase. He stated without hesitating that he would support the O.R.P. tenure in any system that ii might be proposed to place on the Statute Book. Mr. T. Mackenzie contended thal the three best systems were thosi introduced by Messrs Rolleston anc Donald Reid—lease with right of purchase, cash and deferred payment, and of these perhaps the latter was the best. Mr. Witty characterised the 999 years’ lease as ridiculous. Ho contended that this lease was granted a; a bit of pique. The late Sir John McKenzie had originally intended tc, propose a 33 -years’ bass, but be cause someone else suggested 99! years Mr. McKenzie altered his pro posals to 999 years. Mr. Barber contended that the 6t years’ lease was ample fixture oi tenure. He was opposed to the amendment. Mr. Field, in opposing the amend ment," advocated the optional system with right of the leaseholder to ac quire the freehold at present value less the value of tho lease. Mr. Fisher contended . that Sir John McKenzie offered tho leaso-in-perpetuity voluntarily, and not, ai • suggested by some members, at th< point of the bayonet. He added tha~ for 10 years afterwards there were no objections to the system.. Mr. Flatmnn, speaking in favor oi the renewable lease, contended thai land would be taken up under the' Bill quite as freely as under lease-in perpetuity. Mr. Ross, whilst not belibving in the lease-in-perpetuity, would _ support tho amendment with a view tc subsequently supporting the amendment in Mr. Massey’s name to grant • lease-in-perpetuity holders the right to acquire the freehold at original value plus 1 per cent. Mir. Alison moved to. provide that Crown lands, shall ho disposed of under occupation lease with right of purchase. - He argued that no system of tenure had been so successful or had been of such benefit to the State and the people. Mr. McNab said that under the present and proposed system, if the amendment were carried, an applicant would hive no right to take land under the optional system, but only under an occupation lease with rigln of purchase, and the amendment would do away with tho optional tenure under part 3 of the Act. (Mr. Massey said that if it knocked out tho 1 ease-ii n-perputility system and only retained the cash system and the renewal lease, lie argued that they might as well put tho cash system on one side. He spoke Gtronglv in favor of the occupation with right of purchase system.. If they were to settle the question of set,tl;in" the Crown lands of the country It was by giving the tenant the .right of purchase. He added tlmt os'"this Act had to be read with the Act of 1892, it- was impossible under tlio terms of tho amendment to aggregate lands. The House might not agree to tho amendment, but the time would com© when this or a eimilar clause would be introduced. Mr. Stevens said he would support the Bill. The Premier said this country w.as not prepared to go to extremes on either side. He added tlva.t there was no party in the country that could carry the extreme freehold views of members of tho Opposition lor the extreme leasehold viows of other members, and for that mason ho would say the. hon. member for Manawatu was not sacrificing any of his principles in supporting the Bill- The c-lauso was in its operations a substitution of the renewable lens© for the lease-in-perpetuity, and the amendment proposed by Mr. Ali.son would have tho effect of wiping ont that lease, and would not substitute the lease-in-perpetuity. He ‘ urged that they ought not at this stage to introduce tho question of party.

Mr. Bmldo pointed out that "it was quite possible tliat tkero wore wuinhere of persons who wore not pro-; .wired to pay 5 per cent-, under: 0.R.P., and if the amendment was, carried it would at once strike at tho Crown leaseholders who desired to take up ]on sod n-p or p ot'ul.ty, because of the lower rental of 4 per cent-. Ho urged that if they were to assist futuro settlers to attain tho position they themselves hud attained, it was absolutely necessary to retain the stopping-stono which had

assisted them to prosperity. Mr. Barclay contended that Mr. Alison desired to see a system of private landlords such ns existed in England. ‘Whether lie wanted to see it or not, ho would do so if his amendment. was carried. Mr? Laurenson said that at the present rate lands wero being disposed of, in fourteen years there would bo no Crown lands to either sell or leaso in the Dominion. Tho Leader of the Opposition had said it was agreeable to continuo the leasehold system as a stepping-stone, but ho wanted tho right of the lease-

holder to convert tho freehold. If, continued Mr. Iliurenson, the lion. Loader of the Opposition had any

logic ho would seo that in a short time there would bo no steppingstones for future generations. Mr. T. McKenzie said reformers in Ireland and Scotland wero agitating for freehold to be held by tho cultivators of the land. He contended that- it was desirablo in New Zealand to have neither State nor private landlords. ■Mir. Wiilford contended that Mr. Alison’s amendment would preclude’ from settlers the right to toko up kind under the 4 per cent, tenures—cash or renewable lease. He added

that the effect- of carrying the amendment woukl bo tho thin end of the wedge of re-aggregation of largo estates.

Mr. Mander said the Opposition Relieved a private landlord was preferable to tho State as landlord, as ;n the former caso if a tenant wero lissa-tisfied with Ms landlord he owld obtain another. Ho added h vt they did not want any landlord it all .but desired that every man hould be entitled to tho freehold.

Mr. Hogg contended that any man who gave up a State tenancy to go into the hands of a mOrtyigeo was stopping out of tlio fryingpan into the fire. Ho considered the leasehold system tho best that had been devised in the interests of the working settler. • Mr. Major .s-aid ho hoped that the question would be decided on broad principles. He contended that some people wero always in the ruck, and -••ould not bo prosperous under any system. He hoped those members pledged to the freehold would support the amendment. Mr. Henries contended that the -eason applicants for lease-in-perpe-iuity were in excess of other applicants was because of the olituper rent. Sir W. J. Steward contended that if the amendment were carried it .-ould mean that all Crown. lands

.-ould have to ho disposed of under he O.R.P. Gyatcm , and there would >e no Crown lands left for endownemt purposes.

Mr. Lang, replying to Mr. Barclay, said that this amendment was levised to prevent tho imposition of rack rents.

Mr. Mills said ho knew nothing of illy compromise, and the first he had heard of such a. thing was when Mr. itevens made the statement in the House.

The amendment was negatived by 45 to 20. Following is tlio division-list: Vyea (20): Alison, Allen, Bonnet, Bollard, W. Fraser, Greenslade, Hardy, Henries, Jennings, Lang, Lethpridge, T. Mackenzie, Major, Malcolm, Massey, Okey, Reid, Remingjon, Ross. Noes (45): Aitken, Arnold, Barber, Barclay, Buddo, CfjTrojl, Colvin, Dillon, Ell, Field, Fisihsr, Filatonan, Fowlds, A. L. D. Fraser, Graham, Gray, Hwnan, Hogan, Hogg, Hornsby, Houston, Izard, Kaih.au, Kidd, La-urenson, L-awry, McGowan, McNab, Macpherson, Millar, Mills, Ngatn, Parat-a, Poland, Poole, Seddon, Sidey, St-allworhty, •steward, Tanner, Thomson, Ward, VVilford, Witty, Wood. Mr. Lang moved an amendment to add to the clause including the right of purchase during the first term. ; Mr. McNab pointed out tliat applicants under tho clause had the option of taking up land under cash, .0.R.P., or renewable lease system, .and the amendment proposed that after an applicant had exercised his Option and taken up a renewable ;iease to give him the further option •of purchase. In reply to a question .Mr. McNab said the renewable lease /was being substituted for the lease- ■ in-perpetuity. In every instance settlers taking up land under the Occupation with light of purchase system and not exercising the option within tho 25 years allowed would ■be given a renewable of the lease-in-perpetuity as at present.

The amendment was rejected by 37 o 25.

The clause was passed by 41 to 20. Progress was reported, and tho ’louse adjourned until 7.30 p.m. on Wednesday.