THE LAND QUESTION.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIV, Issue 124, 16 November 1911, Page 8

THE LAND QUESTION.

CRISIS APPROACHING. IMPORTANT SPEECH BY SIR JOHN FiNDLAY. EVILS OF MONOPOLY. Auckland, November 13. Swne important remarks on the land question were made to-night by Sir John Eindlay in a speech in St. David's Hall. "In the land question," he said, ''our national destinies are more vitally involved than in all other public ques- ' tions put together, and a crisis in it is approaching. The magnilicent national endowments of Crown lands handed over to representative government in this I country some sixty years ago has nearly all gone into private occupation under different tenures, and now only 135,000 i acres, some of it inaccessible, of what can be called first-class land, remains unalienated, the balance being mainly remote from access and poor in quality, as a remnant, after years of selection, | must necessarily be." Heretofore the land question had been chiefly confined to tenures and methods of settlements of Crown lands. The supply seemed inexhaustible, but the line was now nearlydrawn, and little of the land was left. It was to be expected that the dwindling of the remnant of these Crown lands had accompanied the drift of our population to the towns and cities. Thirty years ago 00 per cent, of our people were in the country and only 40 per cent, in the centres. Since then the proportions had steadily altered, and now over .">0 per cent, of our people iwere urban dwellers, oO.VSDS were in the towns and cities, and 400,742 were ie the country. This change had bee:

uniform and unbroken, and the country population bad in thirty years fallen frnni 00 per cent, to 40 per cent. He

quoted figures from the Inst Year Book to show thnt only about a tentli of the people in the country held any land of an area of over ten acres in extent. He pave figures to emphasise tin* decree of the landless population in the Dominion. The total area of land fit for cultivation of any kind in New Zealand did not exceed 5,000,01)0 acres, while no less than 30.000.000 acres was held in holdings of over 040 acres, and 1.'i.000,000 acres of this area was freehold. Nineteen million acres of the best rural land had already been alienated by the Crown in fee simple. It was true that, the holdings exceeding 10,000 acres had diminished during the last twenty years by some 3.000,000 acres, but the disposal of half of the amount was due to purchase by the Crown of great estates under the Land . for Settlement Act, and the rest was largely due to the graduated land tax. Subdivisions to avoid that tax, however, did not result in closer settlement. It could not be denied that enormous areas of the best land in New Zealand were still held by private owners in great and uneconomical accessive holdings in fee simple. It was to these holdings and to all the surplus native land that the Government must increasingly look for closer settlement as the last remnant of our Crown land disappeared. SMALLER AREAS MUST SUFFICE. Two cardinal features of the Government's land policy were strenuous and expeditious subdivisions of the great private estates and to reduce the size of the settlers' allotments. This reduction had already been largely made by the Land for Settlement Act, Land Settlement Finance Act, and the i-and Act itself; but where the land was of first-class quality even smaller areas than those now allotted must suffice if justice were to be done to all who genuinely seek a home on the land. The disappearance of baekblocks settlement which must take place shortly with the alienation of the remnant of Crown lands should cause no embarrassment s« long as the large estates were available for closer settlement. This latter settlement was, indeed, from many points of view preferable to baekblocks settlement. Contrast, for example, the settlement which took place ten years ngo on the great Hatuma estate acquired by the Crown compulsorily. Though there was outpost settlement in almost inac-cessible-Crown lands, the ITatuma estate when acquired was served by railways, roads, and by all the conveniences which a large neighboring township furnished. The land, moreover, was improved, and had not been long under cultivation. Here the estate was not put to the great expense of providing access by road, erecting schools, post offices, and other requisite conveniences for the settlers, as it had to do in the baekblocks settlement. But this difference to the Government was small as compared with the difference to the settlers themselves. Sir John drew a strong picture of the hardships, struggle, and isolation imposed upon these settlers, particularly upon their wives, and contrasted that with the lot of the settlers on any great private estate that the Crown had acquired. There was in this respect all the difference, between a laborer's hardship in isolation and a comfortabe life in contact with civilisation. These large holdings were not only uneconomic but antisocial. They were chiefly responsible for forcing men and women to confine themselves at great sacrifice in remote, inaecessible parts of the Dominion. The Hatuma estate contained 26.500 acres, and when acquired was carrying 38,000 sheep, 8000 cattle. 4G 'horses,' and some 20 human souls. The owner was an absentee. The owner spent £7OO a year on improvement .of the whole estate. Ten years ago it was subdivided among small settlers. The land now carried 50.000 sheep, 1400 cattle, 300 horses, and 250 souls; and the tenants had in ten years effected improvements valued at £40.500. The former owner's improvements at (he old rate would have at this time been £7OOO. Sir John quoted figures in respect of Millburn, Starbor- ; ougli. anil oilier large estates taken bv (he Government, and showed that the produce in some cases was now twice what it was when the estates were held in large single holdings. large eslaies so acquired by the Government were now carrying 18.000 souls, as against 1750 at the time they were acquired. These great estates were both uneconomic and anti-social. ' WHAT METHODS?

The most, 'imperative reasons existed for Forcing closer settlement upon them. What were the means h\- 'which this was to he done? The Cioveniment. had borrowed nearlv .Cd.000.000 alreadv for the purchase of large estates, but unless we were j)i'epared to add much more greatly and rapidly to our public debt, adequate, acquisitions to meet the demands of settlement could not go on. Moreover, to force purchases in the usual way would be to raise the price of the 1 land as against the fiovernment itself. The large landowner naturally employed every means to extract from'the Crown more than the estate was worth. For example, the Flaxbourne estate, which contained oT.OOO acres, was at the time the Government took it eompulsorily. represented as worth €IOO.OOO. The owners, however, claimed ,1410.1)00. and the right to retain 11.000 acres of some of the best, of the estate; and they were awarded £IBI.OOO for the balance. Mr. Massey himself, who strongly opposed I the compulsory powers of acquisition in the bind for Settlement Act, had declared that he would himself ask three I

times as much for an estate if the Government decided to take it. POLITICAL STRATEGY. Mr. Massey's .solution of the difficulty was to sell the Crown lands now leused to the Crown tenants at the original value, and so, by making these men a gift of some millions of money to which they were not entitled, obtained a limited amount of cash to buy the larger estates. That was a piece of political strategy. Jt, aimed at securing the Crown tenants' vote, the vote of men for whom the Liberal Government lnid been lighting the larger land owners ! during the last twenty-one years. Hut j even if this proposal were politically I , honest, which it was not, it would not meet the difficulty, for first, where was the money to come from? if it were I to. come, from the Advances to Settlers 1 Office the State would have to borrow it in the English market; if from tho local money market, its withdrawal i would undoubtedly involve financial stringency. But much more important, the total product of the proposed sales of all the areas at the original value would buy only a small fiaetiou of land of equal quality at the present price. And how far would this small fraction meet the growing demands for settlement? They should not forget that Mr. Massey's political life had shown that he and his friends gave their support to the large land owners, and in his (the speaker's) opinion no man could truly serve the purposes of closer settlement in this country who was a friend and ally of these land monopolists. ! ' TAX EVADED.

Sir John Findlay then dealt with the graduated land tax, and explained at length why it had failed to effect closer settlement, inasmuch as the subdivision as a rule was merely to escape the tax and not to settle the laud in small areas, lie referred to the present law in England, which gave power to take large areas compulsorily by either sale or lease and settle the lands in small holdings. He emphasised the fact that in England to-day the largest areas could lie taken under a. compulsory and perpetual lease, the owner receiving nothing hut rent determined by an as- ; sessur. The same provision was being' made this year for Scotland. He outlined also the drastic powers already operating in Ireland. Sir John explained the machinery of the proposed new method of acquiring land from large owners under the Family Settlements Act. The owner could transfer an estate at a price fixed by the Governor and ! take for it debentures with a ten years' currency, and the land in tho hands of the Government was to be disposed of in small areas in the deferred payment system and by way of tender or auction. If the proceeds exceeded the price fixed by the Government the owner was to be. paid this with interest. If it were less a corresponding reduction was to he made in the amount of the debentures. In that way the Government would require to borrow no money. It would become a small subdividing agent, and could proceed at once with the rapid subdivision of many estates that were necessary to meet present demands.

II NOT? He had reason to believe that the large landowners would accept the new scheme, but if not, in view of the urgency and the importance of the matter, there was a precedent in England to make it compulsory. The speaker then dealt at some length with the evils of the ballot system, and contended thnt so long as the large proportion of the land was disposed of by ballot no objection could be made to the tender system in proper cases. It would obviate the present absurd trafficking in Crown lands, and, secure a fairer adjustment of prices. He thought the optional system of tenure would work best. The freehold could be reached by the State through legislation just as easily as the leasehold. He illustrated this by Mr. Lloyd George's betterment provisions. Effective provision could be made for freehold as well as leasehold against aggregation, which he deprecated as standing in the way of strenuous progressive settlement. He referred to the proposal in the Family Settlement Bill introduced this year to buy a million acres of land in advance of the construction of roads and railways, and thus acquired it before these public works had added to the value. These lands could be taken, if necessary, compulsorily. whether they were owned by natives or Europeans, and should be settled in living areas among groups of families and individual settlers.