House of Representatives.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXII, Issue 8941, 5 October 1907, Page 3

House of Representatives.

Press Association. Wellington, October 4. The House met at 2.30.

MrOkey continued the debate on the second reading of the Land Laws Amendment Bill. He stated many members were pledged to vote for the freehold, but he did not think they were satisfied with the freehold provisions under the Bill, which were hedged about with conditions that made it practically impossible for a leaseholder to acquire the freehold. He contended that the proposals of the Bill constituted it a South Island measure, and it would not suit the requirements of ths settlers of the North Island. He urged that leaseholders should be allowed to secure the freehold at the original value plus one per cent., but, to expect that these settlers would apply for the freehold at the present values was ridiculous, and the provision might as well have been left out of the Bill. Mr Duncan said he had no hesitation in saying that the land laws originated by Sir John McKenzie were the foundation of the Government’s large majority, and he thought tho Minister was wrong in making any alteration in tho lands for settlement section. He believed a regulation could be made to empower tho Minister to vary the conditions of lands for settlement to suit various districts. He contended that the member for Lyttelton and the “Lyttelton Times” had done more to raise the agitation for the freehold than anything else. Mr Lewis congratulated the Minister on having done tardy justice to members of the Opposition, who had been much maligned during the past few years when advocating the right to the freehold. He added that the desire of the Minister appeared to be that, in order to prevent the lease in perpetuity holders increasing to such an extent that the Government could not resist their demands, the various Crown tenants should split up into a number of parties all hostile to each other. Continuing, ho maintained that compulsory residence on leases for two years before tho lessee was entitled to transfer his lease would go a long way to prevent speculation in laud. Mr Jennings congratulated tho Minister on the change he had made from the Bill of last year, which was distinctly for the betterment of the people who desired to settle on tho lands of the Dominion. He dwelt on the disabilities under which settlers in the North Island laboured in connection with native land leases, remarking that nobody but the settlers themselves could realize the disadvantages. He urged that settlers who suffered the hardships of the backblocks were entitled to any increment which might arise through the progress of settlement.

Mr Boss expressed his dissatisfaction with the 33 years’ lease, and he did not think anyone would be satisfied with it. He contended that a person who held a 999 years’ lease had the full right to the increased value of the lease; and no leaseholder in perpetuity would feel disposed to convert his leasehold or to pay the price set forth by the Bill at its present value to acquire the freehold. He characterised such an idea as utter nonsence. and he contended that granting the freehold to tenants at the original value would be one of the best things that could happen to the country. Mr Spines urged that the full value of improvement should be conceded to the lessee when the lease was being valued for renewal. He contended that there was no such thing as unearned increment to which the State was ensitlcd. All the State was entitled t) was rent. He contended that the best system of tenure we ever had was the 0.8. P., and it only needed a provision to enable tenants to pay off capital value in sums of £lO and upwards after the tenants had occupied the lease for teu years. Mr Lang complained that the Government members were not taking a fair part in the debate, which was being earned on mainly by tbc Opposition members ; bo thought that the importance of the measure justified the people in expecting that two Government members should speak after each Opposition member. He strongly supported the freehold, which, he said, was undoubtedly coming, no matter whether the present Ministry were prepared to grant it or not. He objected to clause GO, which provides for the compulsory acquiring of land at the (axing value plus 10 per cent. The House adjourned at 5.30. The House resumed at 7.30.

Mr Fisher prefaced Ins remarks hy stating ho boliov -cl that every Crown truant of a lease iu perpetuity should bo allowed to acquire the freehold at an equitable value, and expressed the hope that members would succeed in drafting a clause to this cud. Ho admitted that it was au involved ([nestion, and lie did not think they could got any members of the House to agree on the land question, which was a vital one. Ho wont on to say that the city members fully realised wlr.it the disabilities of the people cm the laud were under, and were willing to extend t/icdr sympathy to them, but expected fair treatment iu return for the cities from the country members.

Mr Laurousou, referring to Mr Massey’s remarks, said that the lion, gentleman appeared to have no sense of proportion. Ho added that Mr Massey confused Socialism with Communism, whereas Socialism was iu no wav Communism, but was th •, embodiment of a new civilisation introduced by a great Socialist two thousand years ago, and ho maintained that the lion, gentleman failed to realise that we were living iu an age of Socialism, and that the whole system of Railways, Post and Telegraph, Educational, and Hospital systems were principles of Socialism. Proceeding, he argued that settling a man on the land was so that he could make a living on the laud, and uot bv selling the land. He added that the dearer the land became the harder it became to make a living. The dearer the land 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 Opposition, who then had the effrontery to accuse members on that side of the House of lack of sympathy for the men iu the hack blocks. He contended that the man who went into the back blocks should be exempted from paying rent for the first year. Th c Bill itself did uot go far enough. Ho had hoped that not another acre of Crown laud would have been disposed of but he recognised that bvery step of advancement had to bo readied by compromise. The leaseholders had given away half their programme. He hoped the freeholders would come the other half. Mr Laurousou, in refuting the contention that lands wore heavily taxed in Now Zealand, quoted figures to show that the taxation in Great Britain was equal to 8.3 per cent, whilst in New Zealand the rate was only 4.8 on the output. Ho contended that the present high values of laud wore depopulating the country districts and increasing the populations of the towns, which tended to create poverty and slums. Ho quoted figures to show that the percentage of the increase since 1891 is higher iu the cities than iu the country.

Mr T. Mackenzie deplored that the population in some of the country districts was not increasing. Ho contended that the settlers would not / go into the backblocks in the face of tlio single-tax agitation that was rite, but if they wore given the option or acquiring the freehold, the settlers would ho found willing to go out into the hack parts of the colony. H° ■ wont on to say that the English ,' system of tenure was the only onn i which was driving the people out Oj. the country, whilst France, with its |i! system of small divisions, was cul- |- tivated by its farmers to the highest K degree. Ho did not think that lands E should be in the position of being E'; compulsorily acquired at 10 per cent

above their taxing valuation, but ho believed that more business capacity should bo infused iuto tho Purchase Board, aud he contended it was for lack of this business element that this clause was included in the Bill. He urged that the Government should cease publishing Socialistic literature contending that in the Labour Journal had appeared theories of Henry George on laud matters. Mr James Allen quoted from various Socialist authorities to show that Socialism was opposed to domestic ties and tho Church. He went on to say that the Opposition was not supporting land monopoly, but were strongly in favour of small farmers, as if Socialism was to bo 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. Continuing, be said that Sir John MacKenzie bad great faith in the 999 years’ lease, and made no attempt to remove it from the Statute Book. In fact, he always voted against any attempt to alter it. As to the differentiation that was to be made between

tho ordinary Crown lands and the lands for settlement lands, he could see no difference between tho lands won from the natives by the sword and those that were purchased from those who had acquired it in the ordinary way ia vogue when the land was open to purchase. Mr Major characterised Mr Laurenson as a fiery optimist, and speaking as a freeholder, he argued that a tenant under the optional system was in a happy position. Ho added that no sound judgment had been made against the contention that lessees in perpetuity should obtain the freehold at the original value. Mr Hornsby quoted the writings of Socialists and divines toco;,l.overt Mr James Allen’s contention lii.it Socialism was subversive of the family tie and opposed to the Church. Dealing with the Bill, he advocated the freehold with limited area. Ho added that if he could he would prevent a single inch of the remaining Crown lands from being alienated. He was in favour of the Crown tenants obtaining the freehold at the original value.

Mr Hogg contended that the State ought never to have parted with its interests in the land, but if the limitation of tenure could be properly carried out it would remove one of his chief objections to the freehold. He went on to speak in favour of tbc freehold, contending that the land of every country was the property of the people, aud the Government were the trustees for the people. One disadvantage of tbe freehold was that a man could sell his farm, and turn his sons and daughters out who had worked hard for his benefit. He added that the mortgage system under tbe old style of money-lenders was slavery—the farmer was a serf, and the money-lender practically a slaveowner.

Sir W. Steward, whilst generally supporting the Bill, said that when it was in Committee he would move to reduce the term of lease from 66 to 33 years.

After the telegraph office closed, Mr Wilford spoke iu favor of freehold, on the ground, amongst others, of sentiment and sense of freedom from servitude aud diminished possibility of legislative interferences. Mr Remington expressed himself as favourable to granting the freehold to Crown tenants subject to stringent restrictions of acreage and conditions as to occupancy. Mr Thompson believed that the trend of the times was towards freehold with limitations.

Mr MeNab rose to reply at 3 o'clock. He said ho felt some confidence in approaching the committee stages. He believed members of the House intended to approach the problem of settling land matters in the same spirit as members of the Lands Committee had exhibited. He contended that confusion had arisen during the debate between the Land Bill proper and the Endowment Bill. Linder section 3 of the Land Act applicants would have the right of selecting under cash, occupation with right of purchase or the renewable lease. He pointed out that Government were extending the rights to secure freehold and not reducing, as was apparently thought by some members. He went on to say there was no intention to dispose of the 9,000,000 acres endowment under the optional tenure. They were rapidly approaching the time when there would be no land to put on the market under the optional tenure, aud then they would bringing about the same result as was proposed by the endowment proposals of the Government, except in regard to the destruction of the revenue. He hoped to be able to intimate to the House shortly what Government proposed to do with regard to leases of endowment lands, The second reading was agreed to by 38 to 9. Messrs Hardy, Herries, Malcolm, Houston, Major, Hander, Okey, Massey and Lang voted against. The House adjourned at 3.30.