POLITICAL NOTES AND COMMENTS.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXX, Issue 8523, 28 August 1907, Page 5

POLITICAL NOTES AND COMMENTS.

(Prom Our Parliamentary Correspondent.) WELLINGTON, Tuesday. THE LAND BILL. When the Land Bill will come on for its second reading depends largely upon the disposal of the tariff and the passage of the residue of the Estimates through Committee of Supply. It will be interesting, however, to know the main lines upon which the Opposition and members of the Country Party who side with the Opposition on the land question will attack the Bill as amended by the Lands Committee. Probably the most contentious clause in the seventy-four which constitute the Bill is clause 19, which occupies two pages of the measure. The first sub-section of this clause provides that every owner of a lease-in-perpetuity shall, have a right at any time hereafter during the existence of the lease to purchase the fee simple of the land comprised in the lease at a price equal to the capital value of the land at the time of purchase; but subsection 14 excludes land for settlement lands from the operation of the provision. Exception is taken to this on the ground that, while the Governmeathas over and over again acknowledged the right of the tenant to the value of the goodwill, the Bill proposes to ignore that right. "Let us suppose," say the objectors, "that a man a couple of years ago purchased and gave a good round sum for the goodwill of an estate, if you now only give him an opportunity to purchase at present value, you compel him to purchase the goodwill a second time." This, it is contended, is most unjust and should not be insisted upon. There will be much discussion over the point upon the second reading debate, and a big fight when the Bill is in Committee of the Whole House.

Sub-section 14 incidentally referred to above will prove even a more contentious provision. It is one respecting which country members are more dissatisfied and disappointed than with any other. The constitution of the Lands Committee led to the hope that the purchasing provision would be extended to land for settlements as well as Crown lands, and their hope was justified for a . time, as thb was actually done. Later on, however, when the Committee met with a changed personnel duo to the absence of one member and the presence of a member who had had time to change his views, the question was again brought forward, the decision was revoked, and the status quo ante was resumed. This was a blow to the freeholders, who will rcsent it when they get an opportunity in the House. With regard to the leases, it is held that if the lease-in-perpetuity is to be abolished, the term should £e at least 6G years alike for land for sefcfcleinC nt teases and Crown lands. The chum ae*ll"* w3th .compulsory taking of land is hesj P be iniquitous in principle 1 , At the present time, when land is compulsorily taken, the valu- is fixed by the Arbitration Court, but this is entirely altered under th* Bill, so as to enable the purchaser (the State) to fix its own value. Clause 66, sub-section 1, says:—"When any land is taken compulsorily under the provisions of the principal Act, the value thereof for the purpose of assessing compensation shall be the capital value of that land as assessed in the valuation

roil in force under the provisions of the Government Valuation of Land Act, 1896, at + ,he time when the requisition is gazetted for the taking of that land." This virtually abolishes the Compensation Court, and leaves the purchaser to practically fix his own price—a principle which it is contended would not be tolerated for a moment in any ordinary business transaction. True 10 per cent, is added to the assessment of the valuation up to £50,000 and 5 per cent, over that amount but, say the objectors, this does not in any sense mitigate a vicious principle. This leads up to another matter of importance which will provide food for much discussion and oppositicn. Under the present law the Government can purchase compulsorily, for workmen's homes, land within fifteen miles of any of the four large centres —Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch, and Dunedin—the landowner being privileged to retain 50 acres if he feels so disposed. That provision is altered by a new Bill to make it apply to a radius of within fifteen miles of any borough. In other words, the greater bulk of the country is laid open to the exploitation of the Government if it thinks it desirable to use its powers. In this case, also, the land may be taken at the purchaser's own valuation plus 10 per cent. The general opinion of the country members is that this provision should be wiped out. The Government's proposal to abolish the ballot for land for settlements land has, as is now well known, been struck out, and the ballot system, which, under its present conditions, is freely condemned, is retained. The Opposition party, however, are not sorry that the old system is not set aside because it is believed that it can be made of greater value than the Government's proposal to substitute public tender for it. Some country members do not believe the tender system would improve matters much, but they do think that if preference is given to the landless and that transfer is prohibited until the settler has proved his bona fides, the ballot system can be made very much more effective than it is at present, and the evils now existing under the system would be greatly mitigated. It is on the lines here indicated that the debate will chiefly centre on the second reading, and provide almost unlimited food for discussion in Committee, though there ai-e, of course, many other features of the. Bill which will offer scope for wordy warfare.