Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY. TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 1910. THE FREEHOLD.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 10132, 1 November 1910, Page 4

Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY. TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 1910. THE FREEHOLD.

One of the first acts of the Labour Government in New South Wales has been to declare against the freehold tenure for land. The Labour Party in Australia, as in New Zealand, is possessed of the erroneous idea that the land should vest in the. Crown entirely, and that the fee simple should not belong to the individual. The assumption is that, by making people tenants of the Crown, the interests of the masses will be conserved, and that the increment which now goes to the individual would, in some mysterious fashion, become the property of the State. Allowing, for the sake of argument, that the State had the

right of revaluing the land, and increasing the rents at given periods, this right could only be exercised up to a certain point. If an \mreasonable demand were made, the tenants would abandon their selections, and the whole country would bo thrown upon the hands of the State and become a wilderness. But, knowing that the right of revaluation was vested in the State, and that they may be rack-rented by the Government landlord, few people would be disposed to take up land on these terms. Experience has shown in New Zealand, where an effort has been made at nationalizing the land, that the Crown tenant system has not produced a settlement of the land by bona; fide settlers. It has resulted in a huge gamble, and thousands of pounds have annually gone into the pockets of bogus settlers and speculators.' The only, genuine settlement has been in cases where -selectors have had the right to ■■acquire the freehold of their selections. l It is true that Crown tenants are, In a measure, bound to the Government of the day, and that they feel an obligalioa to vote right at thes ballot

box. From tins point of view the Crown settler is an acquisition to the party in power. In the interests of the country, however, it is desirable that men should be placed upon the land under such a tenure as will induce them to make the very best use of their holding. There is no other tenure that can, or will induce them to do this than the freehold. All the talk of alienating the land from the Crown is unadulterated nonsense. Not a single acre is alienated. The Crown, so long as it possesses the power of taxation, can levy whatever toll it may think fit upon the lands. The only question at issue is whether the occupier of the laud or the State itself should have the management of the selection. The experience of older countries has shown that landlordism, whether State or otherwise, is n curse. What is it that is causing thousands of people to flock to Canada at the present time? Is it not the inducements offered to obtain the freehold on the easiest of terms? What has made Denmark the thriving community it is to-day? The freehold, of course. The greater the freedom that is given the settler, the more active - will he.be in securing paying results. It is the desire to make oneself independent of others that is the incentive to thrift and industry. It is the ambition to improve one's position that spurs men to energy and sacrifice. Remove the incentive, and the State will suffer as the individual becomes a sluggard. The Labour Party in Australia may be inspired by the most humane and philanthropic motives in moving towards what is termed the "nationalization" of the land. It will find, however, as Queensland, and Westralia, and New Zealand have found, that the State ownership of the land is a bad thing for the country, and that immigrants will go only to those countries where the right of the freehold; is conceded en equitable terms.