THE LAND BILL.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume L, Issue 60, 5 October 1907, Page 2

THE LAND BILL.

rnoGiaiiss ofr' frxiii debatjs Per Press Association. Wellington, Last Night. In the House tins afternoon, Jlr Dicey continued the debate 011 the second reading of the Lan.l Laws Amendment Bill. He stated that many members were pledged to vote for the freehold, but he did not think they were satisfied with the freehold provided under the Bill. He contended that the proposals of the Bill constituted it a South Island measure, and would not suit tile requirements of the settlers in 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 tiiese settlers would apply for the freehold at the present value was ridiculous, and the pro- ■ vision might as well have been left out out of the Bill.

Mr Duncan said lie did not agree with the change in the Land for Settlement under this Bill, for reasons which he would enumerate in committee. He had no hesitation in saying that the land laws originated by Sir John Mackenzie were the foundation of the Government's large majority, and he thought the Minister was wrong in making an alteration in the L'>m!s for (Settlement section. He added that '.t was impossible to meet the varying requirements of various districts in one Bill, and he urged th.it it should be made more clastic in its operation. He believed a regulation could be made to

empower the Minister to vary the conditions of lands., for settlement to suit various districts. He* contended that the member for Lyttelton, and the Lvttclton Times, had done more to raise the agitation for the freehold than anything else. Continuing, he contended that the Minister of Education, who was a single-taxer, bad. taken good care to see that increased taxation did not fall on the towns and cities.

Mr Lewis congratulated the Minister on having (lone tardy justice to members of the Opposition who had l>con much maligned during the past few years when advocating tile 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 extcut that the Government could not resist their demands, the various Crown tenants should be split up into a number of parties hostile to each other. Continuing, he maintained that csinpulsory residences on leases for two years i • fore a lessee was entitled to transfer his lease, would go a long way to pievent speculation in land. Mr Jennings congratulated the Minister on the change he had made from the Bill of last year, which was d:t tinctly for the betterment of the people who desired to settle on the lands of the Dominion. The Minister had said he had displayed a spirit of goodwill, and the unanimity which seemed to prevail in connection with the Hill aug- , ured well for its success. He dwelt 011 , the 'disabilities under which settlers in i the North Island labored in connection ; with native land leases, remarking that • 'nobody but the settlers themselves could realise the disadvantages. He urged that settlers who sull'ered the hardships of the backblocks were entitled to any increment which might arise through the progress of settlement. Mr Koss expressed his dissatisfaction L with the 33 years' lease, and he did not 1 think anyone would be satisfied'with it. • He contended that a person who held a ■ ODD years' lease had the full right to ! the increased value of the lease, and no 1 leaseholders in perpetuity would feel ■ disposed to convert his leasehold, or to ' pay the price as set forth by the Bill, 1 of its present value, to acquire the free- ■ hold. He characterised such an idea . as utter nonsense. He contended that ■ in granting the freehold to tenants at - the original value it would be one of tnbest things that could happen to t ho ) country. Mr Byrnes urged that the full value of , the improvements should be 'conceded : to the lessee when his lease was being ■ valued for renewal. He added that lie ) did not agree with those members whio ' advocated a retuhi to the homestead i system, as the land that was left now ; was not lit for such a system, die 1 contended that there was' no such thing 1 as unearned increment to which tfce 1 State was entitled. All the State was 1 entitled to was the rent. He conten'd- - ed that the host system of tenure we ) ever had was the it only r needed a provision to enable tenants to , pay, off capital value in sums of £lO - and upwards, after tenants had occu- , pied the lease for ten years. > Mr Lang complained that the Gov- ; ernment were not taking a fair part in - the debate, which was being carried or mainly by the Opposition members. Hi > thought that the importance of tin i measure justified the people in expect 5 ing that a Government member shouli • follow each Opposition speaker, "and ii the present state of the parties he con ' tended that two Government inernjier » speak after each Opposition membei . He strongly supported the freehold 1 which, he said, was undoubtedly com . ing, 110 matter whether the present Min istry were prepared to grant it or uot lie objected to clause GO, which pro vides for compulsory acquiring of lam at taxing value, plus 10 per cent. The House resuming at 7.30, Mr Fish er prefaced his remarks by stating h believed that every Crown tenant of i ]e:ise-in-perpetuity should be allowed to acquire the freehold at an equitabl value, and expressed the hope tlia members would succeed in drafting ! clause to this end. He quoted fron speeches to show that some Minister had expressed themselves as opposed to disposing of Crown lands. He addei that the alterations from last Bill had been adopted in a spirit of con ciliation, so that now it was proposei to set apart nine million acres as lease hold, and a similar amount as freehold He admitted that it was an involve! question, and did not think they coul< get any two members of the House t agree on the land question, which wa a vital one . He urged the Premier t' reconsider the question of selling an; more Crown lands. He went on t say that the city members fully real ised what 'disutilities the people on th land were under, and were willing t extend their sympathy to them, bu expected fair treatment in return fo the cities from the country members. Mr Laurenson, referring to Mr Ma? sey'a remarks', said the hoii. gentlema: appeared to have no sense of proper tion. He added that Mr Massey con fused socialism with communism, where as socialism was in no way commun ißm, but was the embodiment- of a nev civilisation introduced by the Great So cialist two thousand years ago, and E maintained that the hon. gcntlemai failed to realise that they were living ii an age of socialism, and that th whole system of railways, post ani telegraphs, educational and hospital sys terns, were the principles of socialism Proceeding, he argued that settling 1 man on the land was so that he couli make a ,living on the land,.and not 6' selling land. He added that the deare:

land became,' tile harder it became to make a living, and the dearer the lankl the less wages became. He contended that the reason why settlers had to go out to the verge of civiliastion 'wag hecause of the land-grabbing monopolists, wlio 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 in the back-blocks. Ho 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 land would have been disposed of, but he recognised that every step of advancement had to be reached hv compromise. The leaseholders hnd given away half of their programme. Tie honed the freeholders would come the other half. Objections had been taken to clause fif>, but what had been the history of the purchase of estates bv the r !ovcvi)inciit? On eight estates jilono.

Hie Government had jriM £170.388 more than the land tax value was, or an •i ventre excess of C' 22.417 for each estate. and in the case of the Forest O:\fe Mate, the price paid exceeded the land valuation hv C 15.701. He went 1 0"i to sir that pettier were set- I foil on 050.402 acres and 27,504 on H 4- 1 ■VS./I-77 acres. or 0.1.07*2 settled on 3.".- 1 ~07.RP0 Proceeding. the snid ' 'lint in America ?fl per cmt of the M fnrmers were tenant farmers, in Franco. H the per contage of tenant farmers was fl >2!). in Grr ' 1! <. in England 50. in' 8 mrni

Scotland 75, and in Ireland 93 per cent. In New Zealand holding's of one acre and upwards were 09,942, and owners of land of one acre and over 52,000, so that in round figures 27 per cent, of our farmers are tenant farmers. In England one lui'.in in two farms his own land, in Scotland one in four, in Ireland one in sixteen. Mr Laurenson, in refuting the contention that lands were lieavily taxed in New Zealand, quoted figures to show that taxation in Great Britain was equal to 5.3 per cent, whilst in New healand the rate was only 4.8 on tile output. He contended that the present high values of land were depopulating the country districts, and increasing populations of the towns, which tended to create poverty and slums. He quoted figures to show that the per centage of increase since 1891 is higher in the cities than in the country. Mr T. Mackenzie deplored that the population in some of the country districts was not increasing. He contended that settlers would not go into tl'e liackblocks in the face of "the singletax agitation that was rife, hut if they were given the option of acquiring the freehold, settler* would bo found willing to go out into the ba'ck parts of the colony. He refuted Mr Laureneon's remarks regarding the effect of land values on wage?. So far as the provS sions in the Bill limiting the holding o land were concerned, he did not "Kriov whether the prersent proposals went fa: enough. Sheep country lands shouli be re-grassed, and the optional systen established. Otago needed these things Mr James Allen quoted from varioui socialist authorities no show tlmt SO sialism was opposed to domestic tiei and the Church. Ho went on to'sai that the Opposition was not supportin; land monopoly, but Were strongly ll favor of small farmers, as, if socialisn were to be fought successfully, it wouli not tend to the well-being of the com inunity. Continuing, he said that Si Tolm Mackenzie hid great faith in th< 999 years' lease, and made no attemp to remove it from the Statute Book In fact, he always voted against an; ittempt to alter it. As to the differ vitiation that was to be made betweei jrdinary Crown lands and lands fo lettlement lands, he could see no differ )nce Jietween the lands won from til latives by the sword and those tha ivere re-pureliased from those who lia icquired it in the ordinary way in vogn ,vhen the land was open to purchase. Mr Major characterised Mr <Lauro.il on as a fiery optimist. Speaking as a reeholder, he argued that a tenani inder the optional system was in a lappy position. He added -that no ound argument had been made against he contention that lessees ih perpetuity hould obtain the freehold at the origilal value.

Mr Hornsby quoted the writings ot socialists and divines to controvert Mr James Allen's contention that socialism was subversive of the family tie, and opposed to the Church. Dealing witii the Bill, he advocated the freehold with limited area, and added that ,if he could, he would prevent a single inch of the remaining Crown lands from being aiienated. He was in favor of Crown : tenants obt lining the freeholds at the original value. Mr Hogg contended that the State ought never to have parted with its interests in tho land, but if 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 favor of the freehold (sic), contending that land of every country was the property of the people, and the Government were the trustees of the poeplc. One disadvantage of the freehold was that a man could sell his farm and turn out his sons and daughters, who had worked hard for his benefit. He added that the mortgage system, under the old style of money-lenders, was slavery. The farmer was a serf, and the moneylender practically a slave owner. Mr Steward, whilst generally supporting the Bill, said when it was in committee he would move to reduce the term of lease from GO years to 33 years.