THE LAND BILL

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXVII, Issue 3726, 1 December 1906, Page 2

THE LAND BILL

Interview with the Premier.

intentions of the Government.

Christchurch, Nov. 28.

Interviewed by a Press reporter, to-day, Sir Joseph Ward stated the position of the Government in regard to its land proposals. Sir Joseph Ward said; — THE CAMPAIGN. “ The policy of the Government will be explained fully in different parts ot the country. I am going to speak as soon as I get clear of my present engagement. It can be taken for certain that the proposals contained in the Land Bill and the rest of our policy will be clearly laid before the people of the country so that they will have an opportunity of fully understanding them. Mr McNab’s tour in the North is for the purpose, chiefly, of explaining the provisions ot the Land Bill in regard to which there is a great deal of misconception—which has been industriously cir - culated. The land proposals ot the Government, though understood by a section of the community, I am quite certain are not understood by the great mass of the people. I have received many letters supporting our land proposals. For instance, here is one before me now in which the writer ‘ 1 thoroughly endorses the provisions in the Bill.” THE FARMERS’ UNION. Asked if be were likely to take part in the campaign soon, the Premier said:—“Yes, but I am not quite certain where I will speak first. Most probably it will be in the North. There are a number of farmers in different parts of the colony—who are themselves the owners of freehold land —who have written to me after making an examination of our land proposals, and they state that they generally agree with them. Summed up, the opinion expressed by them is ‘that the Land Bill is the nearest approach to effecting a settlement ot the land question upon a broad basis that has been proposed during their time in the colony.’ I stated when last in the South that I had information in my possession that there was likely to be trouble within the ranks of the Farmers’ Union. Though a great deal of information was in my possession then, I did not feel justified in discussing the troubles of the Union, which I knew were about to see light of day, but it is quite evident from what has now been made public that there is a large section of the farmers, who compose the Union, who are entirely out of accord with the ideas of the president of the Union. LIMITATION OF AREA. “The farmers (by the union itself) have been circularised through out the length and breadth of the country putting forth the limitation of areas as one of the union’s planks, and the fact that this is now being opposed by a section of the executive on the face of it indicates a reversal of what was the policy before the last election. There is no proposal in the Land Bill—and we have stated this on more than one occasion—which in any way can be construed into interference with the freehold. THE FREEHOLD. “The idea has been industriously circulated that the freehold of the ordinary farmer throughout the country is not safe. This is absolutely contrary to fact. There has never been a suggestion of any kind ever made by any member of the Ministry, nor as far as I know by any member of the House, that any interference with the existing freeholds of the farmer should be attempted or take place. Certainly it is beyond all question that the Ministry are against land nationalisation, and would strongly oppose any proposal to nationalise the land of the colony. To the commonseuse thinker the days have long passed by when even the aspirations of a sincere land Rationaliser and there are some of these in the colony would in practice be possible. My own opinion is that it would have required to be commenced concurrently with the period of Adam and Eve to have enabled such a policy to be put into effect. What the opponents of the Land Bill realise is that the country as a whole is totally and earnestly opposed to the continuance of large landed estates or to further accession to those large landed estates by the existing holders. The fact that the present graduated land tax has enabled large areas in different parts of the colony to be further increased clearly demonstrates that a change of a practical character to ensure the cutting up and the prevention of the growth of large estates in future is absolutely essential in the general interest of the country. RESULTS OF SUBDIVISION. “ The limitation of area, and the prevention of a man who has a large landed property now of adding to it, is as much in the interests of the farmers and, their families as it is in the interests of the mechanic or any other section-of the community, t wherever he or they may -dwell. ■ The. Laud v Bill now befo® the country has been .submitteaWith eu honest desire , to - assist wk as a Whole, and withd®| injuring the-landed proprietors, against whom, "as individuals; hone h|m;have a, jyorcTtb say,. It is only |i’atural tiieyfhould endeavour to retain the present position, and it is equally natural that the tfus-, jvtees of4he country as a whole!

should desire to tlement in its broadest possible aspect. It is undeniable that whereever large landed estates have been acquired by the Gc /eminent and a number of settlers ' put upon the land, instead of it being retained by the one owner, the settlers have not only benefited but the tradespeople in the towns and cities wherever the policy has been carried out have found there has been considerable acession to their business, and they in their turn have done well. BI.OATBD ESTATES. “The man who is sincerely anxious to obtain a freehold certainly has a prospect of a much larger area of freehold land being available for sale under the proposals of the Government t&m he has had under any other of land legislation, certainly in my time. As a typical illustration I may mention a case where there were seven persons who owned 300 miles of land in one district, and in a case of the kind it must be admitted by even the strongest advocates of the freehold system—by the way, no Parliament in my opinion, could carry legislation giving effect to the freehold only in this country, and certainly not upon its original value—that that is a most undesirable state of things, and is opposed to the best interests of all classes of the country. I know of no reason why there should be any acerbity introduced into the discussion on important proposals of this character. Thos who are for or against the policy can, I hope, place their views and arguments on record without the introduction of the personal element in any sense. lam one who believes—and thousands of others do so with me—that a great deal of the prosperity through which our country is passing is due to the closer settlement, and therefore to the greater development of our land, and consequently to the increase in our exports, though the good prices for our various products have of course helped materially in this direction; but the more thickly farmers are planted upon the soil ot the colony, I expect a still greater volume of exports year by year, and a still greater impetus to the business of our' /tradesmen and business people, and an increase in the number of the workers by reason of the additional power of employment that the returns from the increased product must bring. The effort of the country should be to make our land legislation as broad as possible, and to do no injustice in effecting this great reform.”