FREEHOLD V. LEASEHOLD

Hokitika Guardian, 8 September 1926, Page 4

FREEHOLD V. LEASEHOLD

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL DIVIDED.

MEMBEItS’ VIEWS.

Speaking on the Land Laws Amendment Bill in which there is a provision to give the freehold of endowment lands to selectors, the Right Hon.. Sir Robert Stout, in the Legislative Coun-, cil on Friday, said that he was of opinon that the proposal was a. huge mistake. As far back as 1875 bo bad stated the system of leasehold was the most desirable and profitable way to utilise the land. If they wanted the State to get the economic value of the land, the only way to do so would be by way of lease. But an agitation had arisen in favour of granting the freehold ; the 999 years’ lu.tse had been introduced; the right to purchase was granted in certain cases by, he regretted to say, a Liberal Government, mainly to raise funds. And what was going to happen under the policy contained in the Bill before them, compared to what would have been the ease bad tile leasehold policy been adhered to?

CITY ENDOWMENTS LESSEN RATES.

As an example as to what would have been possible, he had only to refer to Hie ease of the City of Dunedin. There they had endowments which were at one time of comparatively little value, but were now yielding ia revenue of £IO.OOO a year in reduction of the rates. In Wellington City the rates were very high indeed, amounting to what was at one time an ample rent, but if the endowments were utilised to the fullest extent the charges on the rales would be considerably reduced. If the system embodied in the objectionable clause was to be the policy of the country, then what, lie asked, was to become of .the various endowments held by corporations anil different bodies throughout the country ? Were they all to be sold? For if it was not right that the Stale should lease land, then how could they justify anyone else doing so? In England there was such a thing as the Mortmain Act, under which corporations ’and churches could not Hold properties for lease. Was the policy of the country to be the “usebold,” so that no one could hold laud who was not using it; that there sliould be no such tiling as corporations holding land, as churches holding land, or similar bodies possessing it? He had heard of corporations lefiving neither body nor soul, and now it was to be said that neither should they have the legal right to own land. For that would be the only thing they could do if they were logical. The proposal before them was illogical, improper, unsound economically, and contrary to rill sound doctrine. ENCOURAGING LAND SETTLEMENT.

lion. G. Moore contended that the only way to encourage good land settlement, and the proper use of the land, was by granting Ihe freehold.

Hon. J. A. Hunan ridiculed the idea, of freehold existing in the Dominion in its true sense, for whenever that obtained they would find the land mortgaged up to the bill. “FIGHTING THE WIND.” Hon. L. M. Tsitt said lie hid ceased to agitato for the leasehold tenure, because they were simply lighting against the wind If the advocates of the freehold were honest and sincere. why did they not give the right to every leaseholder to obtain the freehold of the land he occupied. Hon. A. S. Malcolm contended that the Bill gave the Government power to sell inferior ininls and spend the money in purchasing other lands nearer the towns, where there would be a greater accretion of value He did not see why the farmer should be the only man who had not the right io mako a. competency out of the property he worked. The value of land to the State was only what it pro-

dtieed. Hon. V. 11. Reed welcomed the provision of the Bill to extend the right to get the freehold. Hon. ][. fj. Michel had no hesitation in saying that no measure had kept the West Coast hack more than that ol national endowment, which included seven million acres down there. CROWN SHOULD OWN ALL LAND. Mom. \Y. Eurnshaw contended that New Zealand hail never had any real leasehold, but lie bail always held that i lie Crown should own every inch of land in (lie conn try The Liberal Party hud ceased to be, been use of ils traitorous net in giving up ihe land of the community to the freeholder. The Bill took away the last remnant between the freobodor and the landless man in the country, and the reckoning would have to come between them, He supported the Bill, because it v.us the policy of the majority of the electors.

On the Council resuming at 8 o’clock the Him G. Witty said he was opposed to the freehold being given to endowment landholders, while Sir Frederic Lang supported the Bill and claimed that the prosperity of the landholders was due to the freehold. CARRYING OUT REFORM’S POLICY.

The Hon. E. Newman recalled the fact that during Air Seddon’s Premiership the question of land tenure was Hie line of demarcation between the parties. After every election it was discovered that those in favour of the freehold were more numerous. At the last two elections Hie question was hardly mentioned, and had almost disappeared with the Liberal Party. A i-ather strange position had arisen over the Bill before them, for newly-appoint-ed members of the Council had expressed opinions adverse to the policy of the Government which had appointed them. It was distinctly a policy measure and was carrying out the policy the Reform Government had adopted since it came into existence. He. did not expect the merits of the question at issue to ever come up before Parliament again. The advantages of the freehold were so evident

to anyone who had been a farmer in the North Island that there was little necessity to say anything about it, but the men who had borrowed most money on thoi i- land were those who had done most for settlement. With a mortgage they had’n chance of paying it off, and the great- majority of farmers who had borrowed money had done well. He believed the Prime Minister was right in

taking an optimistic view of the future of New Zealand. Theoretically, if a new country was started and it was all leased it might be wise to do that,

but matters were very different in the stage they were in here. The lands dealt with in the Bill were also entirely inferior in quality. Ho wAs somewhat disappointed that the Mi ills ted did not refer to the classification of the land dealt- with in the Bill for

settling people on was concerned. He should like to see some provision in

law dealing with the occupation ot

land for close settlement. The Hon. M. Cohen reminded Councillors that the late Air Massey had promised that money received from endowments should lie set aside to purchas land close to the towns for settlement. A PRACTICAL AIIXISTER. The Hon. T. S. Weston considered the lease-in-perpetuity was only a play

upon words because it was practically

the freehold. Alost reserves vested in local bodies never bring in the value

they were supposed to possess. As the

result of political agitation legislation was passed unknown to the Taranaki High School Board of Governors dealing with their endowments so that the whole of the value of the improvements lat the end of their term passed to the ownership of the original lessees. It was only in towns where the rise in capital value gave the local bodies any adequate return on their landed reserves. The country were happy in the fact that the control of their land policy was in the hands of a practical Minister of Lands who knew what he

was doing

The Hon. AY. 11. Mclntyre supported the yielding of the freehold to endov"’ent lands, and hoped that the right would bo extended to other lands. He intended to move in committee to extend similar provisions to the AVcstport colliery reserve leaseholders. The Hon. G. J. Garland would rather gr> out of land altogether than take up a Government lease, and be strongly supported the proposal to give the freehold of endowment lands. “AVHTPPING A DEAD HORSE.” The Hon. F. Manlier considered the debate, was like whipping a dead horse in discussing the settled land policy, of the country.

In reply. Sir Heaton Rhodes said that when lie left the “other place” ho thought there were some things he had left behind,,•including freehold v. leasehold, but he was mistake.ii. He pointed out tint the national endowments referred to in the Bill were country lands, but bad they been in the cities it would he a different tale. The annual rents from the endowments was only £145,000, or 3.V per cent of their capital value. Under the provisions of the Bill the Government would receive 54 per cent on the capital value. In regard to the AVcstport colliery reserve, in the face of the opposition of bis colleagues lie whs afraid be could not support its inclusion in the -Bill. The Bill was then committed and passed through all stages.