THE LAND BILL.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXIX, Issue 8357, 14 February 1907, Page 5

THE LAND BILL.

FROM A FREEHOLD POINT OF VIEW. ADDRESSES AT THE TOWN HALL. Messrs J. C. Cooper, W. Matheson and D. Crewe representing the New Zealand Farmers' Union, addressed a public meeting in the Masterton Town Hall, last evening, on the Land Bill, from a freehold point of view. Mr E. G. Etoh occupied the chair. There was a fair attendance, and the speakers were listened to attentively. MR COOPER'S ADDRESS. Mr Cooper was the first speaker. He said it gave him great pleasure to address a public meeting in Masterton on such an important subject as the Land Bill. He regretted that Mr J. G. Wilson, the Colonial President of the Farmers' Union, was not there to address the meeting. As the Minister for Lands had taken the platform and addressed meetings on the Land Bill, it was thought that the head of the Union should take up a similar attitude. There were reasons why Mr Wilson could not take the platform, but the speaker anticipated that if the Minister visited Masterton and spoke on the Bill, Mr Wilson would also pay a visit to the town and reply. UNEARNED INCREMENT. The Minister of Lands, said Mr Cooper, wished to destroy the. ladder whereby many poorer men had climbed into a farm. When the speaker became a settler he was forced by circumstances to take up a piece of land under the lease-in-perpetuity title. If he had only taken up the land a year or two previous he should have had a "very much better ladder" than the lease-in-perpetuity, as he could have taken up his land under the old Rolleston Land Act, which gave settlers the right of taking up land either on the deferred system or lease with right of purchase system. The whole aim and object of the organisation which he represented that night was to get the land system of the country amended so as to return Jto the old order of things which has proved itself so effective in the settlement of the Forty-mile Bush and other' districts: (Hear, hear). But they were met with the Socialists' cry that the unearned increment belonged to the State. His experience as a Bush settler had convinced him that the whole value in any land should be the property of the man who originally took it up, and what was termed unearned increment was for the most part put upon the land by the original occupier. In addition to bush-felling, grassing and fencing, there was such an improvement as roads. Settlers after they had occupied the land for some ; time found that the land was of little value to them without roads. The usual method employed by settlers to get these roads was to mortgage their holdings through the medium of the Loans to Local Bodies Act, by which means the roads were formed, the settler having to pay interest and sinking fund until the loan was liquidated. Again there were second "burns," and often third and fourth "burns." The lands had to be re-grassed, fences, -and perhaps buildings had to be re-erected, besides losses in stock, which had to be made good. Yet these "burns" added value to the land, which was often called unearned increment, but he settlers had to pay very dear for it. Again dairy factories have been the means of adding value to the land, but the establishment of these factories has been the result of the enterprise of the settlers. They have turned but a financial success, and so also have freezing works. Surely there was no one in the colony who could claim that he had an interest in these values other than the settler himself. It had been pointed out also that railways created a value in land. Undoubtedly they did, but without our railway system, close settlement would be impossible, and matter of fact it was the land that was directly and indirectly, paying the interest on the railway loans. Without our railway system there would be no large centres of population in the colony, and if unearned increment was to be found anywhere it was in those cities. The rate of interest also had a controlling influence on land values. A high rate of interest meant a low capital value, whereas a low rate of interest meant the reverse. But what had the greatest influence of ! ffll was the London market in which New Zealand sold her produce, because it largely controlled the rate of interest. It took all these things together to make up the present i value of land, and without that land would be no security for borrowing money.

THE SIXTY-SIX YEARS' LEASE. Therefore the sixty-six years' lease, the chief feature of Mr McNab's Land Bill, which aimed at State ownership of the unearned increment, destroyed that security and made it impossible for a poor man to take up land from the Crown under the Bill. The fact that the lease-in-perpetuity was a difficult title for a man to finance with showed very clearly that the 66 years lease must be infinitely worse. (Hear, hear). He had no doubt that some poor men would take up land under the new system but their difficulties would be so intensified that a very small portion of them could hope to succeed. Without the aid of the money-lender a poor man could not succeed. Therefore it was only capitalists who would have the money to complete the improvements and who could take up the new lands in the colony and improve them. In the meantime the Government were spending large sums of borrowed money in opening up the country for settlement on the understanding that the lands would soon be occupied and carry their own share of taxation. The 66 years lease was to be also applied to the Lands for Settlement Act, but it must be remembered that a man must have a certain amount of money before he could take up land under this system. He had no doubt that these lands, which are highly improved, would be taken up readily enough, and perhaps during the earlier years of the tenancy might be farmed fairly well. As the term of the lease began to run on the reverse would become the case. In fact, a title of this kind would tend to destroy the unearned increment in any land. Though these lands were, as a' rule, improved at the time

they were taken up, they were never so highly improved that they could not be further improved. Science was teaching the farmer of to-day new methods of treating land, amongst others that of draining it —a most costly improvement, but one for which valuers allowed little or no value, though the effect of the draining might last for all time. Again, science was teaching the farmers no only improved methods in the working of their land, but also improvements to their flocks and herds. As a matter of fact, Danish farmers during the time that that country had been a freehold country —about fifty years —had just about succeeded in doubling the production per head of dairy cows. But all this added increased value to the land, which was called unearned increment, and upon which the tena,nt would be called upon to pay an increased rent, when the time for the renewal of his lease came round. The result of this would be that improvements, so necessary for the development of the land, would not be carried out. There was also a provision in the Bill which allowed settlers taking up land under the Lands for Settlement Act to pay off 90 per cent, of the capital value. The benefit to the State of such a measure was very obvious. It would be giving the Government 90 per cent, of the money invested in these lands to carry on the work of land settlement. But what would the tenant receive? He was offered, after he had paid off 50 per cent, of the State's interest on his land, the right of farming his land as he thought fit. There was no provision for him to withdraw any portion of the money that he should pay off. He would practically be locking his money up, for perhaps the greater part of 66 years. There was also a proviso to the effect that if the land had deteriorated, the Commissioner of Lands could at the end of the lease, forfeit the whole or any portion of the money so paid off. The effect would be that any money paid in by a tenant with this condition attached to it would not be worth 10s in the £ to the man who had so paid it in. The same concession was also allowed to settlers who had actually taken up their land under the Lands for Settlement Act, and also to settlers who had taken lease-in-perpetuity land under the Act of 1892. Their position was this They were nominally paying 4 per cent, on the original capital value, but with a rebate of 10 per cent, for payment. It meant that they were really paying 3J per cent. So they were actually paying less interest to the State than the Government were paying on borrowed money. That was a good bargain for the State, but the settlers were offered absolutely nothing, and their title would be just as open to attack from the Socialists as formerly. They were also offered the right of buying the freehold on certain conditions, viz., that the tenant should surrender his lease, and have his improvements valued by an appriser, appointed by the Land Board, after which the property would be offered, by auction and the tenant would have tne privilege of bidding "against the world" for the freehold of his own section. The Government have claimed that they had no intention of breaking a bargain with the holders under the lease-in-perpet-uity system, but by "making _ the above proposal they were deliberately laying claim to the unimproved value on these lands. The correct way to get at the State interest in these be as follows: — If it were a 20 years', or even a 50 years' lease, possibly an acturial calculation could be made of what the respective interest of owner and lessee amounted to. 1 But as this was a 999 years' lease no financier or financial institution would allow one shilling for what the land might be worth at the end of such a period. Asa matter of fact if the Government placed the whole of the securi-. ties of this nature that they possess at the present time on the Stock Exchange, that institution would only look at what interest, the securities were earning, which under the Act of 1592 amounted to 3h per cent, less 1 per cerit. cost of management. Thus the securities were only bringing in about 2J per cent., and as the principle was tied up indefinitely no one would be prepared to give £SO for every nominal £IOO of value. It [ would only probably realise about £35 or £4O for every nominal £IOO of value. This lease under the Lands for Settlement Act was earning probably 1 per cent, or 1J per cent, more, and would consequently fetch a larger price, but it would not realise anything like £IOO. ThereI fore, it would be a good bargain for the State to sell land to the settlers at the original capital value with the proviso that settlers who took up land under the Act of 1892 should pay the 1 per cent, difference between the rate they have been paying and the rate';: paid by settlers who took up land under the O.R.P. system. It would appear nowadays, said the speaker, judging by the Bill, that it would be a crime to be a poor man,, as there was no provision for jja poor man to get a piece of freehold land. Although the Minister claimed that under the limitation clauses, more freehold would be put upon the market than before, he wished to point out that it was only men with capital, especially under the provisions of the Minister's Land Bill, that could buy freehold land. LIMITATION OF ESTATES.

Limitation, moreover, was 110 new thing, and the Farmers' Union had adopted limitations to a certain extent. The rule on the Union platform dealing with this question said that in all estates that were bought under the Lands for Settlement Act, the freehold should be granted only with a sufficient limitation proviso that there should be no re-aggregation of estates. There was also limitation in other countries, namely, France and Denmark, but of a very different character to that proposed in New Zealand. It should, however, be remembered that France and Denmark were densely populated countries. The cause of limitation in New Zealand, as outlined by Mr McNab, was that the country could not go on borrowing money under the Lands for Settlement Act. They had started borrowing £50,000 per annum, and hacj now increased it to £750,000 per year, and it was manifestly impossible for the country to go on at that rate. This had been pointed out repeatedly, and not only was' it a fact that New Zealand was borrowing a huge sum of money, but

the colony was building up the biggest system of landlordism ever known in the world. Instead of amending that system which had done so .much good in the country, and fearing loss of prestige with the Socialist party in the country, the Government were prepared to find means whereby they would allow the Lands for Settlement Act to become a dead letter. So they brought in the limitation proposal, which they considered was going to meet the case. The first limit that the country heard about, and which the Minister was making so much of, was the £50,000 unimproved value limit. Under this limit Mr McNab told the country that some millions of pounds worth of land would be thrown upon the market within ten years. Judging by the disposition settlers, who held land to this value, were making of their property, by the time the Land Bill became law — if it ever did —there would be no £50,000 limits. (Hear, hear). The real limit, however, of the Bill was not what a man was forced to sell down to, but what he could buy up to, and that was £15,000 unimproved value. It was obvious that freehold under such a measure could no longer be the "gilt-edged" security it had been in the past. (Hear, hear). As a matter of fact no bank doing business in the colony could continue business under the measure as they had done in the past. He did not mean to say that they would have to withdraw entirely from landed securities, but they would want very much larger margins and a higher rate of interest, and in many cases would only take a freehold as collateral to another security. It would also affect in the same way the large insurance companies and other financial institutions doing business in the colony, and some of them would probably withdraw altogether. There was about £6Q;000,000 lent on mortgage or overdraft in New Zealand, and the withdrawal of a portion of this would naturally mean a rise in the rate of interest, and a consequent lowering of the capital values. Although mortgagees are supposed to be protected it only amounted to this: — That if a mortgagee was obliged to buy in, in the event of a foreclosure, he got two years in which to re-sell, or his title would be cancelled. It might at first seem that this measure was principally "hitting at the big man," but as a matter of fact it was the struggling settler who would be "hit the hardest." Throughout the colony, and especially in the dairying districts, there were hundreds of working men who, after having saved a few hundred pounds, had been "financed" by some of the well-known financial institutions, and had been able to secure land and stock. These men by any serious fall in laid values would have the whole of their interest in the farms which they occupied completely wiped out, and a rise in the rate of interest and pressure of the financial houses with which they were dealing would si;itl further embarrass them, and probably be the ruin of a great propor-, tion of these settlers. Others, again, who were not so heavily embarrassec 1 , • would have to stop improvements. It would have this .effect generally throughout the whole farming community, and as the whole credit system of the colony rested upon the security of the farmers' lands, it would effect not only the struggling farme* but the small business man. Not only business men. but manufacturers, both colonial ,and foreign, would be likewise affected, and the hardest hit of the whole lot would be the workmen of the colony.

SPECULATORS AND THE LAND BALLOT. Among the reasons given by the Minister of Lands for that terrible financial revolution was that there were no more lands available for settlement, and he quoted cases to show that the ballots for Crown sections had been rushed by hundreds of applicants. As a matter of fact the ballots of to-day were rushed by speculators. That statement was borne out by the Corr.missioner of Crown Lands at Auckland, recently, who said that the Bush and Swamp Lands Act, which gave selectors four years rent free, gave speculators every opportunity to rush the ballots to the detriment of the genuine settler. If Mr McNab wished to distinguish himself as Minister for Lands he should bring in a measure to eliminate the speculator and allow the geniune settler to occupy the lands of the colony. (Hear, hear.)

NATIVE LANDS,

There was, however, in the Minister's statement, that the supply of land was insufficient, enough to make the people ask what had they done with their lands. New Zealand, which was almost as large as Great Britain and Ireland, had an area of 65,000,000 , acres. Of that total 19,000,000 acres were either barren lands or reservations of one kind or another. That might seem a large area, but it was no larger than other countries of the same size as New Zealand. There were in New Zealand 17,000,000 acres of land leased from the Crown, 13,000,000 acres of which was either held as grazing or pastoral runs, 6,000,000 acres of freehold, 8,500,000 acres of waste Native lands, and 2,000,000 acres which the Natives had already leased, leaving a balance of 2,200,000 acres available for settlement. That did not seem large, but the question arose, what was being done with the vast area of Native lands? The Native lands were among the very best in the colony, and on hundreds of acres were seen nothing but gorse, sweet briar and other noxious weeds. It was true that the lands were being dealt with, but splendid land was being leased out in large blocks to capitalists, so the colony was building up two systems of landlordism, namely, the State and the Natives. When it was realised that 80 per cent, of the total landholders in New Zealand only held 4,200,000 acres of land between them, it showed that there was enormous scope for settlement in those waste Native lands, if they were only dealt with" in a proper manner. (Applause). .CLOSE SETTLEMENT. t Close settlement was not possible without roads and railways. plause.) If one took this district, one yrould find that from Napier to the Rimutakas there was a fringe of close settlement along the railway line. The rest of the country was

held for the most part in large estates with very few roads, which were only gummer roads at best. Pongaroa was the one notable exception, and a Government official i told the speaker nine years ago that ] the Government had spent £170,000 , in roading in the Pongaroa district. Many thousands of pounds had been psent isnce, and it would mean the expenditure of many thousands more before the roading of that district ■was cotnplete. If that were taken as an example, and applied to Hawke's Bay and the Wararapa districts, many millions of pounds would be spent in roading and railways before close [settlement could be possible. It was very obvious that such settlement could only be carried out by the Government, and yet the present Administration was attempting to "scuttle out" of the qands for Settlement Act, at a time when it should be placed upon a sound foundation, and not used as a means for building up an absentee land-lordism, but on the other hand as a means of enabling the* New Zealand farmers to obtain the freehold of their farms. It should be remembei*ed that Masterton itself is the centre of a district almost as large as some of the smaller European Kiangdoms, and if the Government would only introduce a sound progressive land policy it would be hard to say what the eventual possibilities of the district might be. To give effect to a system of that kind population was necessary, and one naturally asked where was the population coming from? CANADA AND NEW ZEALAND.

New Zealand had admittedly a superior climate and more fertile j soil than Canada, but the Canadian Government was offering the attraction of the freehold tenure, and in a few years' time that colony must become one of the gxeat nations of the world. As against Canada's inducements to population, what was New Zealand oifering? The answer was, no inducement to a poor man. The Government said to capitalists, "You can coine here and buy the freehold, but we do not know how soon it may be confiscated, or you can take up a 66 years lease from the Crown." This meant that when a man had ended his days upon a farm, | which he had probably cut out of the wilderness, instead of being able to leave it to his children, the greater portion oi' the value in it would be confiscated by the State. New Zealand could never hope# to draw population to her shores with such proposals as those. The colony had made wonderful progress in fifty years, and that progress was almost entirely due to the freehold tenure. People had said that that was only sentiment, but if it were the speaker said it was a sentiment that was 1 building the Empire. It was now proposed to change the freehold system to what Mr McNab was pleased to term the endowment proposals, which was really another name for land nationalisation. The term of the lease (66 years) was rather long, but it was known that had the Bill been proceeded with last session it was intended to endeavour to reduce the length of the lease from 66 years to 33 years. The Premier had stated that he was not a land nationalist, but the speaker contended that he was going as far m land nationalisation as the Socialists of the colony had asked him to go. The Socialists j were advocating that the principle j should first apply to the waste lands | of the colony, then to all existing j leaseholds, and finally to freeholds, j This would eventually mean the ruin j of the farming lands of the colony, i The impoverishment of the soil would lead to depopulation, and they could expect the same effect on the people of New Zealand as in other lands where a land of tenantry was more or less a population of serfs. (Hear, hear). CONCLUSION. Mr. Cooper, in conclusion, sum- J marised the objections to the Bill as j follows! 1. It eliminates the freehold from the land system of the colony. 2. Under the 66 years lease it is impossible for a poor man to take up a piece of waste lands from the Crown. 3. It makes the L.I.P. more insecure. 4. There is no provision in the Bill for the settlement of the waste native lands of the colony. 5. The limitation proposals will upset the finances of the country, and will not take the place of the Lands for Settlement Act in the closer settlement of the large estates. 6. The endowment proposals were another name for land nationalisation. 7. No Bill of this nature should be placed on the Statute Book before the electors have had an opportunity of expressing., an their opinion through the ballot boxes of the colony. MR CREWE'S ADDRESS. Mr Crewe, during the course of his address, asked the audience to do what the Premier had asked them to do with regard to the Land Bill, and that was to discuss it in a cool , manner among themselves. He was there as one of the representatves of the Farmers' Union, to place the Union's views of the Bill before thern in.order that they could discuss both sides of the question. It was generally admitted that the Government had intended to proceed with the Bill during last session until the farmers, whom the Bill affected, roadd known their strong objections to it. The Bill had been "shelved" in order to give the people time to consider it, and it was the speaker's opinion that when the Bill was takeii off. the shelf again the Minister for Lands would not recognise it. He took the opportunity of denythe speakers that evening were agitators or that it was a political campaign they were engaged in. Sir Joseph Ward had said that 90 per cent, of the farmers were supporters of the Government, and if the meeting that evening was of a political nature it would look as though the farmers were fighting among themselves. He was a supporter of the Government, but not of the Land Bill, and if he voted against the Government on the freehold question he would not say that he had left the Government, but rather that the Government had left him. Mr Crewe then went on to refer to the leases of the Wellington Corporation at Pahiatua. He was one of the lessees, and he complained

of the unfair valuation on the part of the Wellington City Council, the owners of the property. The valuation had been made by valuers representing both the owners and lessees, and if the two valuers disagreed, the lease provided that an umpire would be called in to settle the valuation. The valuers originally chosen had not agreed and when the umpire was called in the speaker contended that the City Council had said that the third man was a valuer, and if the lessees' valuer would not go on with the valuing of the property, then the other two would do so alone. The valuations of the property made on behalf of the owners were about 40 per cent, or 50 per cent., and in some cases 60 per cent., below the values assessed by private valuations. The same thing happened to lessees of Educational reserves. The rent was fixed by resolution, and if the lessees at the time thought that the rents were assessed too high, the lease was put up for sale by auction, and if the bids did not reach the upset prices, the lessee went out and got nothing for his improvements, The same state of affairs, the speaker added, would exist under the 66 years lease contained in the Land Bill. Referring to the freehold, the speaker said that there were other countries in the world that were holding out the freehold of land as an inducement to prospective immigrants, and as the result the population of those countries was rapidly increasing. New Zealand, if she did not want to be left behind, would have to adopt the same policy. In ten years' time, he said, all the estates in the colony over £50,000 unimproved value would be cut down to the legal amount. The pieces of land over and above £50,000 would be sold .'as freehold land to anybody, including aliens, who liked to buy them, and the result would be that the present New Zealand born children would not to' obtain a piece of freehold land for themselves. There would be no'freehold available at that time. In conclusion, the speaker said that it was the ambition of every man to own land, and no man would be satisfied until he got the freehold. "We were doing well before the Bill was introduced, and wl\y can't the Government let well alone," concluded the speaker. MR MATHESON'S ADDRESS. « Mr Matheson spoke chiefly from his experiences as a member of the Land Commission. After going through'the country with the Commission he felt perfectly sure that the freehold tenure wa§ the best. Of ten members that constituted the Commission five had voted for the leasehold and five (including the chairman) for the freehold. He was alone in his recommendation that the settlers under the Land for Settlement Act should be granted the right of purchase. He thought that a lease as a lease was all right, but as a lease was a ladder by which a man climbed into a property of his own, the lease was not a complete ladder until the lessee was granted the right of purchase. He was of opinion that the Bill aimed at dividing the people of New Zealand into two classes, viz., those who paid taxes and those who did not. That would be a bad state of affairs. Everybody should pay their share of taxation in order to pay the interest on the money borrowed by the colony. The speaker preferred to call the Land Bill a pill which Mr McNab had swallowed, and which was making him feel very uncorhfortable. The speaker's convictions about the freehold were unshaken and nothing but the freehold, he thought, would satisfy the people of the colony. Under a freehold tenure, he said, the farmers put up better homesteads and improved their lands far better than those who held land under lease. QUESTIONS. Mr Cooper was asked by one of the audience, what was his idea in endeavouring to flood the country with immigrants when there were thousands of people in New Zealand at the present time who could not get a pipce of land if they wanted it. Mr Cooper, in replying, said that in the first place, he was unaware that there were thousands of people in the colony looking for land ; secondly, he thought that evei-ybody would admit that what New Zealand wanted was population. There w£re millions of acres of waste lands in the colony, and more than a million people were wanted to develop them..

In reply to another question, as to whether he would express an opinion on a certain article on the Land Bill which had appeared in the Evening Post, Mr Cooper stated that he had been waiting for a criticism of his speech at Eketahuna by the Wellington papers,' but as yet he had been disappointed. The papers had said, in as many words, that he had been talking "bunkum," but they had failed to prove it. MOTION. Mr W. Bennett moved, and Mr J. Burke seconded— s 'That this meeting is of opinion that no Land Bill will be satisfactory to this Colony that refuses the option of the right of purchase to Crown tenants who hold their land under close settlement conditions." The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.