THE LAND COMMISSION.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXVI, Issue 139, 12 June 1905, Page 2

THE LAND COMMISSION.

SITTING IN AUCKLAND

Having returned from Rotoru*, the Land Commission resumed its sitting in Auckland this morning, meeting in the lower room of the Chamber of Commerce. Mr. R. Hall (chairman) presided, and the other members present were: Messrs W. W. MeCardle, G. W. Forbes, W. BMatheson, and D. MeLennan, together with the Crown Lands Commissioner at Auckland (Mr. J. Mackenzie) and the secretary (Mr. W. J. Mnnro).

THE COMMISSIONER'S EVIDENCE. The first witness examined was the Commissioner of Crown Lands in the

Auckland district (Mr. J. Mackenzie) He read and handed in a type-written statement of his evidence, in which he expressed a general opinion that the present constitution of land boards was a good one, but in large districts such as the Auckland one the number of members could be increased with advantage to give the move remote places representation. If, however, the elective principle were to be introduced, then Crown tenants ought to elect 25 per cent, of the members. A nominated board, however, was more likely to administer the land laws consistently with the policy of any Government of the day. There were 23 different forms of land tenure in the Auckland district, and 5054 Crown tenants, holding 1.348.355 acres at a total annual rental of £44,040 9s Gd. The alienated Crown lands covered an area of 2,154,718, and there still remained 1.700,----550 acres of Crown land unsettled, oi which 827.170 acres were op?n for selection, and 579.350 not yet thrown open. Of this last mentioned area, however. 338,000 acres were being prepared for selection, and about 150.000 acres of en tirely new country were likely to be ready for settlement during the current financial year. In addition there were 486,----179 acres of kauri gum and forest reserves. The question of tenure had more reference in Auckland to closer settlement conditions than to the pastoral runs which existed in the South Island. He was in favour of consolidating methods of tenure, as far as possible, under the optional system of Part 111. of "The Land Act 1892" rather than introducing new forms of tenure. The improvement and residential conditions of the three tenures —conditional cash, O.R.P. and L.l.P.—needed to be brought more upon one plane. At present the conditions were lightest nearest to the cash tenure, and hardest in the ease of leasehold tenure, where in reality the holder was presumed to be the poorest of tins three. He suggested that the O.R.P. conditions should be applied to all. The dread of revaluation had don,? more to cause unrest in the minds of Crown tenants than anything vKe, as had been shown at nearly every meeting the Commission had held in the North. It confidence could be restored on this point, and the tenures stripped of some of their present encumbrances, he believed the present uneasiness would disappear. For example, as years rolled on and the genuine tenant's position got stronger and the conditions of his lease became complied with five-fold, he might well be freed from the control of the land board, except in regard to precautions for the payment of rent and the prevention of sale to any person who already held too much land. The village settlements of i the past had been useful in relieving the i cities in times of depression, and herpI ing those who otherwise would have been ! sorely pressed to gain a temporary livelihood. A large percentage of such tonj ants, however, soon moved into larger j holdings or other employment. The same remarks applied to the improved farm j settlement tenure. Both tenures had put I many deserving p?ople upon their feet. I The mining district land occupation and the Hauraki pastoral tenures, whose purpose was to enable land to be settled in such a way that the interests of mining were preserved, were satisfactory. The demand for 909 year leases, instead of 21 years, should be granted only in cases where minerals were absent. As homestead lands, 70.090 acres had been settled in 4G4 sections. This tenure was mot now in operation, but its re-introduc-I tion within certain limits with larger 'areas would help to settle our poorer I lands. He suggested that the land should not be given away free, but that the tenant should be required to pay the cost 'of survey and (say) 2/0 per acre by in- [ stalments over five years, to be spent [entirely on roads to give access to the j holdings, the first instalment to be paid I in the third year. The settlement of poor land in this way would benefit the northI crn districts. The lands for settlements I schemes in the North had not been so giIgantic as in the South, because there were large areas of unimproved land still I available in the North at lower rates 1 than improved land could be offered for. 1 There were 430 tenants of lands for setj tlement in the North, leaving 79,006 I acres at a total rental of £12,707 17/7 j per year. All the settlements were fairly prosperous, some specially so. Near Auckland a number of workmen's homes had not been readily taken up—only 230 acres of the 996 acres of hamlets had been taken up. Numbers of Crown tenants on small holdings close to new estates opened up desired their residential conditions i relaxed sufficiently to enable them to take i up sections of the new estate for their : sons. The cropping difficulty here was ! not felt, the farmers of their own accord (desiring to have their lands in pasture as 'soon as possible for dairying or pastiuling. The resident:)] disadvantage's were felt most severely where there were h>different access, want of schools or wai'.i. of employment. And in such cases ;.ne I Auckland Board had never hesitated to postpone residence where good cause \vs ! shown. The first thing considered by the ' Board was the genuineness of the appii cant. With this assured the discretionary powers allowed by the Act were g?nerally sufficient to meet the majority oi' cases. He agreed, however, with the re- i solution passed by the conference of Lar.! I Boards at Wellington, that under ceri.u'n j restrictions for the prevention of dummy- ! ism and the aggregation of large estates. residence could be postponed for seven years in all forest and second-class len 1 in the remoter districts of the colony. This would be operated on only in certain proclaimed blocks. The real object of this change would be, of course, to e!> j able city people to take up land either for themselves or for their sons, and to , effect the necessary improvements before I taking up permanent residence on the land. So far none of those who had j criticiseu the ballot system had presented, to nis mind, any better way of selection. He would suggest, however, that the Land Boards should be given power to examine all applicants before the ballot, and reject unsuitable applicants. If this were done there would be little to complain of in the ballot system. For the power to exclude applicants who were not genuine would result in offenders of that class ceasing to put in applications. "I have in my mind," said the commissioner, "two large land ballots held in this district since I came hero. One was a lands for settlement ballot, where examination was necessary. In this caso not more th»n two per cent, were reject-

cd. The other case was for ordinary Clown lands, without examination, and ' if there had been the power to do so prob- I ably 80 per cent. Would have been thrown out." The grouping of sections and the I second ballot were strongly objected to in the Auckland district, and prevented good settlers from applying. He believed the substitution of examination instead would meet the case, and give greater satisfaction. Owing to the difficulty of profitably spending the small sums of money known as thirds, he suggested that local bodies should be empowered to raise loans for road construction on the securing of the thirds. In the Taranaki district there used to be complaints that ; the advances made to settlers were in- | sufficient and less than could be obtained ; from private tenders, though the State j advances were made at a lower interest. He had not heard this complaint -made I in the Auckland district: The only complaint was one of the delay experienced in getting the advances completed. The reports of the rangers showed that the Auckland settlers were making good headway, and many who started with j nothing now had comfortable homes. The early stages of settlement were made easier in the Auckland district by assistance derived from the timber, kauri gum and iiax industries. The eomniis- I sioner then quoted exhaustively from official reports on conditions of tenure, i The cross-examination was deferred. To the chairman: To some extent the' ! large area of land held by the natives I and the want of good roads were bars to ! the progress of settlement in the Auckland" province. Alfred Sanford, a colonist of forty j years' experience, and for a number of I years a leaseholder, spoke in favour of j the leasehold. He handed in written cvi- ; deuce, and proceeded to criticise the de-j j fects of the present ballot system, and i urged that greater limits should be put i on the land which one settler should hold, ! especially in the way of value. No freeholds should be granted at less than their i present values, as to make presents of | land to settlers was a corrupt practice which no honest politician could countenance. In regard to borrowing, he believ!ed there had in the past been too much borrowing, and too little work. He held ! that one-fifth of the colony's land ought Ito be permanently reserved for endowj ments to provide against possible bad times in the future.

Samuel Augustus Brown, holder of; 310 acres of freehold, 136 acres of lease- 1 hold, and 109 acres of lease-in-perpetuity. said with regard to the constitution of land boards he considered that the mem bers of boards should be elected, twothirds by the Crown tenants, and one third by the public through the Government. In respect to tenures, he considered that the so-called freehold was a burden on the farmers, and should be called a mortgage hold. He thought the lease-in-pertuity better than the freehold. The present system of balloting for land was, iv his opinion, faulty, and thought a policy of first-come-first-served would be beneficial. He was in favour of re-valua-tion at the death of tin- lessee. With amplifications, the old 'tnestead system should, in his opinion, be reintroduced.

Robert Nesbitt Smith, freeholder in the Thames district, favoured the freehold, considering it to be a better tenure both for the State and the people. He was of the opinion that there was no such thing ns an unearned increment, especially in rural lands.

Donald McKinnon, freeholder, from .he Waikato. supported the freehold, and said he believed in advances to settlers as it helped towards greater prosperity and independence. He believed in the Government giving the lease to the people with right of purchase, for every man looked forward to the time when he could make his land his own. In cutting up swamp lands for settlement, the Government should drain them first, before putting settlers on the land.

Dr. James Wallis. freeholder, spoke strongly in favour of freehold. The sole ownership of the land by the State had been tried in all ages and had ever failed. It was the worst and most mischievous system that was ever devised. It threw the whole burden of taxation on the agricultural population, and that would be unjust—monstrously iniquitous. (Proceeding )