LAND REFORMS.

King Country Chronicle, Volume V, Issue 402, 7 October 1911, Page 5

LAND REFORMS.

THE PROBLEM OF THE GREAT ESTATES.

The Government promises to give careful consideration to the suggestion of Mr Ross that, when framing their land and other legislation, provision should be made for proclaiming suitable districts near towns and tailways as "close settlem3nt atflas," within which districts land would be available only in "living areas," and the holding of large blocks of undeveloped land would be effectually discouraged therein. A similar answer has been given Mr Field, who asked the Minister of Lands, whether he will bring down —■ this se3sion it possible, and if impossible, then prepare during the recess and introduce next session —• a Bill providing for (a) a common - sense classification of land for all classes, whether Crown, native, or private, so that such absurdities as the inclusion of properties worth £4 and £-50 and -over per acre respectively in the same class may be abolished, and (b) a 'reasonable limitation of area, so urgently needed in this Dominion.

Mr R. B. Ross said he was glad the Government were going to give consideration to the matter he had referred to. The policy of the Opposition was to send the people into backbiocks, to the native lands, and to allow the large land holders, in the more valuable areas, to retain their extensive areas. In his own electorate, within 300 yards cf the borough of Pahiatua, a landholder, an absentee, he'd 3480 acres. It was capable of carrying twenty families, but at present had upon it one man—a shepherd. Mr G. W. Forbes (Hurunui) said the trains ran through miles upon miles of first-class land capable of carrying many times the population it did. If some provision were made in the direction indicated it would not only assist settlement, but would also mean improved rail way services to the country districts because they would be better able to pay. It was all very well to talk about the rough unsettled areas. What was required was closer settlement on the so-called settled areas. There should also be compulsion behind the negotiations by the Government for land.

Mr Massey said there had been misrepresentations in regard to the attitude of the Opposition to the land question. Where land was not being properly used, and was not fully producing whether i" was Crown or native land something should be done to make it fully producing. That was the Opposition attitude. Every practical settler knew that the more his land was improved, ths higher, under the present taxation system, became the unimproved value. The Government should do more tu tax the unimproved land and tax improvements jess.

Mr Vigor Brown said Mr Massey'd statement was merely a subterfuge. There was no unoccupied land alongside railway lines now. It had all been mopped up by Mr Masaey's friends and supporters. A return recently presented showed that 540 people owned six million acre 3. This was the land that should be cut up. MrH erries: Why dont' the Government cut it up? Mr Brown: We want you Opposition to help us to get it cut up, but you don't. He found 231 people owned four million acres. They wanted to get the big land owners on the side of the people. Were the people who owned the land supporters of the Government, or were they on the side of the Conservatives? In the district he came from, Hawke's Bay, the only settlement was in the backblocks. The good land was held bv the big owners.

Mr L. M. Isitt said that he felt they must do all they could to get the Government to push closer settlement. He thought -Mr Ross had put his finger on the weak spot —-that they were doing so little to break up the estates along the railways. Was the leader of the Opposition prepared to help the Government to break up the large estates close to the railways and the roads? Fie would like to know.

Mr Massev said the Opposition had done everything to help the settlement of tiie land. They had given the Government £500,000 a year under the Lands for Settlement, and then they found that last year only one-third of that amount had been spent. Mr E. H. Taylor (Thames) said the leader of the Opposition was always talking about native land. But why had the Conservatives not endeavoured to do more under the Land for Settlement proposals? They and their friends had enunciated a policy last session of asking three times the value of the land. Mr Herries said the Government had had the necessary weapons in their hand for cutting up the land. There was the 'graduated land tax, and it was working in the direction intended, and the large estates were being cut ud. There was also the power conferred in the Lands for Settlement Act. But the Government in 1907 had thrown away their beat weapon. They then had arbitrators to decide the value of land. But this, in 1907, had been phanged, and the landholers were, allowed to price their own land. The Hon. D. Buddo emphasised the fact that as fast as suitable estates were recommended by the Land Purchase Board they were acuired by the Government for close settlement. Care was, however, taken that settlers were not put upon land which was too dear. Difficulties were put in the way of passing the Act by the Opposition which were almost insuperable, and it was not encouraging to hear the leader of the Opposition declare that if he was asked to sell, he would specify three times the value. The State was not interested in local rating which, was based on improvements, and it vvas quite inaccurate to state that a farmer was taxed on his improvements.