LAND LAWS AMENDMENT BILL.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXIX, Issue 3776, 8 October 1907, Page 3

LAND LAWS AMENDMENT BILL.

Second Reading Carried. The debate was continued on Friday. Mr Okey, speaking on the Land Laws Amendment Bill urged that leaseholders should be allowed to secure the freehold at original value plus one per cent., but to expect that these settlers would apply for the freehold at the present value vVas ridiculous. Mr Laurenson said that the dearer land became the harder it became to make a living, and the less wages became. He contended that the reason why settlers had to go out to the verge of civilisation was because of the land grabbing monopolists, who were supported by the members of the Op-' position, who then had the effrontery to accuse members on that side of the House of lack of sympathy for the men in the backblocks. He contended that the man who went into the backblocks should be exempted from paying rent for the first year. The Bill itself did not go far enough. He had hoped that not another acre of Crown laud would have been disposed of, but he recognised that every step of advancement had to be reached by compromise. The leaseholders had given away half their programme and he hoped the freeholders would come the other half. He said that on eight estates alone the Government had paid £i79>3 88 more than the land tax value was, or an average excess of ,£22,4x7 for each estate, and in the case of the Forest Gate estate the price paid exceeded the land tax valuation by £18,761. He went on to say that 36,478 settiers were settled on 959,462 acres and 27,504 on 34,548,427 acres, or 63,972 settled on 35>5°7i 88 9 acres. Proceeding, he said that in America 26 per cent, of the farmers were tenant farmers, in France the percentage of tenant farmers was 29, Germany 15, in England 50, in Scotland 75, and in Ireland 93 per cent. In New Zealand the holdings of one acre and upwards were 69,942, and the owners of land of one acre and over 52,069. So that in round figures 27 per cent, of our farmers were tenant farmers. In England one man in two farmed his own land, and in Scotland one in four. Mr Laurenson, in refuting the contention that the lands were heavily taxed in New Zealand, quoted figures to show that taxation in Great Britain was equal to 8.3 per cent., whilst in New Zealand the rate was only 4-8 on the output. He continued that the present high values of land were depopulating the country districts and increasing the populations of the towns, which tended to create poverty and slums. Mr T. Mackenzie urged that the Government should cease publishing Socialistic literature, contending that in the Labour Journal, published at the cost of the Government, there had appeared the theories of Henry George on land matters. Referring to land purchases, properties all over the colony had been offered, and with what a miserable result. So far as the provisions in the Bill limiting the holding of land were concerned he did not know whether the present proposals went far enough. Mr James Allen quoted from various Socialist authorities to show that Socialism was opposed to domestic ties and the church. He went on to saj 7 that the Opposition was not supporting land monopoly, but were strongly in favour of small farmers, as, if Socialism was to be fought successfully, it would be by creating a number of small farmers. He argued that Socialism would not tend to the well-being of the community.

Mr Hornsby quoted the writings of Socialists and divines to controvert Mr James Allen’s contention that Socialism was subversive of the famity tie and opposed to the church. Dealing with the Bill, he advocated the freehold with limited area.

Mr Hoe'g contended that the State ought never to have parted with its interests in the land, but if limitation of tenure could be properly carried out it would remove one of his chief objections to the freehold. The mortgage system under the old-style of moneylenders was slavery. The farmer was a serf and the mone3 r -lender practically a slave owner. Sir J. Steward, whilst generally supporting the Bill, said that when it was in committee he would move to reduce the term of lease from 66 years to 33 vears. The debate was continued till 3,30 and the second reading carried by 38 votes to 9.