THE LAND QUESTION.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXIX, Issue 8210, 14 August 1906, Page 7

THE LAND QUESTION.

SOME VIEWS OP MINISTERS. Athoagh it is generally assumed, probably correctly, that tbe Ward Ministry will endeavour to avoid al» highly controversial subjects next session, there is one question of absorbing interest and importance wbioh is bound to oome up for settlement before very long, namely, the land question. The Government must, sooner or later, make a clear and unmistakable pronouncement of their policy as regards land tenure. 'x he following extracts from speechea by the leading members of the present Mininstry have a special interest at the present time, as indicating their opinions on this important topic:— SIR JOSEPH WARD. Sir J. G. Ward (on Land Oom missioner's report): 'I say wfthout any hesitation, that iu this country for a long time to oome you will find that however much the people outside the House may desire to return members with particular views in the land question—you will find that, owing to the geographical position of the oountry electorates and the cities and towns, members on both sides of the House who hold strong views on the question of the freehold as against the leasehold system will be returned, as there are powerful sections in the country who bold pronounced views as to both tenures. Therefore I say that what is done must be in the nature df a compromise—that we must meet one another in a Bpirit of compromise, without sacrificing of principle, in order to insure a good system of land laws being placed on the Statute Book of the colony. In my judgement both systems are necessary. ... I have always supported the optional system, and I believe the optional system in this oountry is one that will still require to be in operation. But, in spite of the faot that under our land legislation for aoine" years Dust the settlement of tbe land has gone on most successfully, I say that members on both sides of the House must recognise that there has recently been a change in the views of the people of the oountry in regard to this importjf ant matter. It has been agreed on all sides that we should make a ohange in regard to the lease-in-perpetuity tenure. It Is generally reooguised in connection with the lands for bettlements system that the tenure under that system should be shortened. A great change has taken place in the minds of the people lelative to the future disposition of our remaining Crown lands. I have no hesitation in stating my belief that the oountry is and has been moving in the direction of granting the desire of a large number of settlers in favour of giving them option of the freehold. 1 express this opinion with the full sense of the responsibility that devolves upon me as representing the people of the colony.' MR M<jNAB. t Mr Massey, the Leader of the - Opposition, stuted the other day that he did not know what Mr MoNab's views on the land question were, or whether be was a freeholder or a' leaseholder. Speaking at Gor« on November 9th of last year Mr MoNab, now Minister for Lands, thus expressed his views: In 1902 he stood as a supporter of the optional system in regard to the disposal of Crown lands, and iu regard to land for settlement Mb opinion

bad not changed. . . . Were they going on for all time buying estates and piling up debt and difficulty? What he uiged was tbar they could keep it there, and, at the same time, keep it in a comparatively liquid condition. If they gave the r'ght to purchase the freehoid, they would not need to borrow more. What the tenants paid for the purchase of other lands the Government could use to buy other land, and they could resist the aggregation of estates. . . . Four millions were now invested, and it was time tney gave the right to ao quire the freehold and did away with the necessity of borrowing for the purchases of further estptes. tie wanted to ask supporters of the lcase-iu-perpetuity system what the colony would loose by aban douing it. Be thought they would loose nothing. . . . Now, when changed conditions made it impossible to carry out tho original intention of legislation, tbero should be machinery under which the tenants could change the conditions without x,o Parliament. The enly way was to let the tenants have the right of purchase, so that they could sell and go elsewhere when necessary.

MR FOWLDS. Mr George Fowlds (now Minister for Education): It is primarily a question that affects the landless people in fhe colony as zo how we are going to deal with the remainder of the Grown lands of tfle colony, rather than thoae who have already got their share, and a great deal more than thoir snare. But the idea of setting up a Commission of freeholders and those who were in favour of it to go round and ask the Gm)WD tenants and the freeholders how they would like the lands dealt with seems to me like asking a schoolboy whether he would like a shilling. Naturally it I would be to the advantage of the T Crown tenants if they could get huld of the lands they are at present leasing undar the terms proposed by the Leader of the Opposition—that isj if they could get the lands at the price at which they were valued when they originally, took them up, when, by the inorese of population and by the making of roads and bridges out of the moneys of the country, those lands have been greatly increased in value. ... As a matter of fact, the economic conditions of the holders of leases in perpetuity are much better than thoy wo aid be if they had the freehold. . . . But the ory has been raised by those agitating in favour of the Crown tenants about the insecurity of their tenure and the danger of revaluation, r Now, Ido not bulieve that those who have been making this cry have any misapprehension on this point—that the danger of revaluation is not as jjreat as the danger of an inorease in

the land tax—so that their tenure to thht exteot is more secure than that of the freeholder, There is more danger in tbiß oountry of an increase In the land ? tax than there is danger of revaluation of the landa held by the Crown tenants. MR HALL-JONES. Mr W, Hall-Jones: I cannot but think this is a question the people should decide, and that we should hold land in trust for the people of the colony, and that we should not he doing our duty if we said we were to give the freehold instead of retaining it for the benefit of future generations who will live in this colony in time to come. I should be sorry to see the present law altered in that respect. . . . But if we are to give Crown tenants the freehold—if by force of circumstances that is done—personally 1 should then vote for giving the lessees under tne Land for Settlement Act the same privilege. MR MILLAR. Mr J. A. Millar (now Minister for Labour): if hon. gentlemen think for a moment that the credit of the colony is going to be pledged to enable the individual to get the freehold they are making a great mistake. If there is this insatiable ory for the freehold 1 say the Government must bring down a graduated laud tax, and then those who want the freehold would be able to get it, and those who want the leasehold could get it. I may point out this to the House: That until the leasehold system was established it was absolutely impossible for any man without money to get on the land. I maintain that the people of this oolony are not going to borrow money to enable a few individuals to acquire the freehold in this colony.