THE LAND BILL.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXV, Issue 10713, 4 October 1913, Page 5

THE LAND BILL.

OUTLINED BY THE PREMIER. SECOND READING DEBATE. (Bv Telegraph—Press Association.) WELLINGTON, Last Night. In the House of Representatives tonight, the Hon. W. F. Massey moved the second reading of the Land Bill. The measure was, he said, another instalment of the freehold policy of the Government.. It was proof that Parliament was willing to recognise the good work done by the pioneers of the country. The success of a settler depended upon two thingssecurity of tenure, and good markets for his produce. That was what the Government aimed at. A good market had been found for produce on | the west coast of North America, and for fruit on the east coast of South America. It was the duty oT, the country to make the most of those opportunities. A great deal of nonsense had been talked about the "Bill of last year. It had been stated that they were giving away the rights of the people; but the State never parted with the ownership of the land. What it did was to part only with the fee simple. It was the duty of the man who owned land in this country to bring that land into the highest cultivation. If he did not do that, he should he made to part with that land. If the producers were to be encouraged, the Government must put liberal land laws on the Statute Book; but they must not forget that, as - circumstances changed, so must their land laws. He quoted a report from the ValuerGeneral, giving details of private lands cut up and thrown open for settlement. The report showed that between eight and nine hundred thousand acres had been so dealt with during the past eighteen months. Dealing with the Bill, he said no portion of it had given him so much thought as the aggregation proposals. The Government did not propose to interfere with any sort of aggregation that "did not interfere with the public good. In cases where men were aggregating against the public welfare, provision was made for interference by the Land Purchase Board, and the Minister informed the owner that he either must cut up or hand the land over to the Board or the State would eompulsorily acquire it. • In nine cases out of ten he believed the 'man himself would subdivide the land and make as much as he could out of it. He had expressed the opinion that in ten years there would not be a large estate suitable for cutting up left in ;the country, and he held that opinion now. Provision was made'in the Bill prohibiting companies from purchasing a number of runs. The principle was, one man one run. In cases where rural land was over-valued by the board, it could be revalued by the Valuer-General, and that value would be filial. If found necessary to j resume a grazing run, the licensee would be compensated to the extent of his leasehold interests. A Hty man riiight take up a section of country land, but need not personally reside thereon; but he must be represented on the section, and must make -twice the improvements imposed in the case of compulsory personal residence. The Bill still gave preference at the ballot to married men and to unsuccessful applicants. TJje old law "stipulated that purchasers of Crown or settlement land shall pay for their holdings in ton payments.. It had been found that many settlers could not complete.' their purchases in that i.imc. and it was now proposed to double tlio time. Provision had been mode that Crown lands without roads shr.ll havo all moneys paid to the Crown w'hidi have accrued from the .salo or letting of land, expended on the making of roads for access to suc-h roads. Provision is made for the purchase by tenants of the foe simple of settlement lands held undor the lease-in-perpetuity principle. An actuarial calculation was provided for. The Government find' not the slightest intention of interfering with the education endowments.

Sir Joseph Wrmi si hid lie recognised that when Mr came into office the tenure of Lliu land was settled on the freehold basis'; but in the Bill now before the House there was no proposal which was going to help settlement. There were several which would retard settlement. He endorsed the views expressed by Mr Massey re the increasing exports of the Dominion, and he wanted to see this branch of otir trade reach £IOO,000,000. Ireland was exporting three times as much as were were, and there was no reason why our exports should be limited to £3,000,000, as suggested by the Premier. The returns of subdivisions quoted by the Premier showed that, only 2143 people had been 'Jjut on the land in 18 months, and he claimed that was not a wonderful result. The real agency in promoting subdivisions was the graduated tax. The machinery provided by the Premier for subdivision in co-operation with an owner, was expected to create a revolution in settlement, but not a single case of subdivision _had taken place. The settlement which had taken place under the Liberal regime was marvellous. Compared with, that result, the aggregation proposals in the Bill were not worth the paper they were writ ten on. The tenure of the future wds to be a limited freehold, assisted by optional leasehold. Mr E. Newman said that Sir Joseph Ward's acceptance of the freehold tenure brought the two parties in the House closer than they had ever been before, because the difference"*lsetween the freehold and leasehold parties had been the principal line of demarcation between them in the pas?. While the proposal to allow settlers on .settlement lands to acquire the freehold was an important one, he regarded the provision for allowing city men to take' up country lands without enforcing residence as the most important in the Bill. He hoped the House would confirm it,

and he would appeal to the Labour party to support it, as the only permanent solution of the labour problem was the close settlement of the land. Mr W. D. S, McDonald complained of the want of courtesy on the part of the Government in not putting _uj> a Minister to reply to the Leader of the Opposition. As to the freehold ,tenure. he claimed that practically every Crown tenant, except those on endowment or settlement lands, had the right to acquire the freehold since 1892, Imt there had been no great rush to get the freehold. He whs a freeholder himself, but he recognised that without the leasehold the bulk of our settlement would have been impossible. He denounced the proposal to remit the residential conditions. """