THE LAND TENURE QUESTION.

Press, Volume LXII, Issue 12481, 18 April 1906, Page 3

THE LAND TENURE QUESTION.

VIEWS OF LABOrR DELEGATES

TIIK CUV FOR REVALUATION

The principal debate at the Labour Conference yesterday, was on the land que/uion, when the subject or j the ii,glit of the Stato to provide for re-■v-il'iaiioii of Crown land* held on lease in perpetuity, revived a good deal of ■ attention, i -Mr \\ .J. Hampton. (Wellington)! nv.-vt-t!—-I iuit the Conference approve! Hi the abolition of -ale. of Crown lands, j and piovision for thy periodical ralu- j ation of ail Crown lands held on kvi.se, ' at the dearh. of tlie present kwoo, or | the tiariMer of the ioase to another' party, whichever -haii occur first. Tiie ' re-miip.ioii of hind for cla-vr c-eitlement to I) 1 at mvii.'X, valuation lor taxation puip.e~e>. pi n> 10 per cent. 'I'eiiaiH ■> to liavc an ah-oliire right to their iinproven.t'iiN. Specially; in support ol t lie. motion lie -aid \-,> thought the Conference wa.s aguvd on the question of the leaM'h.iid, and that the iease-in-p(T]«'-tuiiy v.in almost a- lt.id a* an niiijualilied freehold. The only way in which they could avoid the <n!> which were an.-ing <:nt. ot this -y.-teni of ti-iiuro was u> provide for revaluation. The- qucriiou ot a contract heiwcon the Crown and the original le.-sees could, lie t!ii!ii;_hi. lie don It with by preserving in-v.-u'a.;' :he right., ot' tho individual !.--.•,.. ;us Ion.; i>> they ha<l a jK-rsona! :n 'Tis! in their h-a-0.-. Ah- !•'. l'atx (.N, lsjii; .seconded the niction.

.Mr J. T. Paul (Ot-ago) moved as an i\iii.'M(lni«.iii— "Thiit tho word* 'held on I'sit at !lit> death of tin , pusent les.-ee c: , il:e traiMer i>l the lviiw to another party' he del, tfii. _ and that a provision In- inserted providing dimply f<;r revalii- : aiiun in liituiv lea-is.' . Ho considered t!u> propiwd to interfere with existing c.mi i.k ts \\;is iiiiiiiiiiiil and unjust, sind tii:»!. they wt<\\" iViiliy ;\t I :il kinjj; the I. .i.-i'lioiil sy>r<Mii. Tli<« proposal tlm\it;;ii;l to cuniiscjito wliii-li wori , «im s.i(-rnl -is tin- ri;;!i:N~po>.s<'s-f<l hy ticili<ji/lfi>, .liul ii it h-«to cjutj<ml iiito ft-fc-i-: it «-oiiid strike v blew at the itMimLuion ,>f soeifty. He thought ilic rigln \\;iy to approacli the (jtH'stion was] n> wifK» <:iit the loasi-in-pt-rpotuity and ! re.-tori' tlu> p<M'p<'tii.d Iki-o. " • .Mr If. Jirt on. (Ot.-iy;i)) secondfd tlie .•iiiK'ndiiicnt, ;md coutoudi d that thf.v wi'i-f to 1-oiin- t'xtt'nt to liUmi! i'nr 1 lie lr-.:iM'-in-pcri;ftiiity tlicm».o|vi'.-. li tin y had had i\ jwiity in Parliament it '.viiuld never have conio .nnont. This wn.s tin- r<\Mi!t ot thoir liccnniing tuns- 1 If<l up with flu , Liberal party. Mr A. Colliii* (Hauk-'s Hay) that tlio git.at, ot' ilio wnrkors nevor hatl «n. opportunity to po before the I/an<l C'omniLsMon and oxpross thoir f'ppasition to tho uily. The , ('i>niini»ion only lnvird inti , rested parlire-". Ho did not think Hit , motion proposed to eonfit-oalt' anything. It only ; proposed to <|c.!il with the loasos at the death of the owivt. .Mr Paul: Tlk , owiut novor dite. Mr Collins continuing, s:iid that tho Suito was lully ontitl'-d to tlic nni'ani<xl inoriMiiont, ami lor tli.it roason he intomli'd to .siippiirt tho motion. Mr W. MVstbrook /Haukc's Bay) tlinught thoy should first try and ro- | p.,iin po-M'-iMon of land that had al- ' !(.ady br.'ii alienated. The State, in; his opinion, had a right to revise its had bargains. Mr I'iiul : You are going hack on your evidence before thi» Land Commission. Mr Westbrnok said, so far n.s that was conciTin-tl, th Labour party <lid not advooaU* illt< revaluation until iha It'asrlioldor attempt rd to convert his liolding into a freehold.

Mr W. H. Haini>ton (Wellington) iv.is very much eurpriHwl sit the siititmlo of Mc-srs l'jiul and This matter v.a.s placed Ix'l'oro the ta-*t Conlerenro ' l>y tho Ot;igf> and (hoy ivor© ' new hack on iv. Tiie only reason, as far ii> he could >cc, lor ,;i rhanjre , of front was because of ;in outcry from porsoiLs diivcHy int.UY--t<>d, niul who were, trying; to hovvl down 11ioh> who j had first hrought tho mat tor forward, j There wa-> no (jnevtion ol any repudin- , lion of any cont; act ninde hy the State, hut it w:is rather one of restoration to the iK'oplc of rights that had been h'lch- ! td nwny from thorn. j The Chaii'inan .siid they seemed to l>? | getting wrapp<'d up in this question of j i •'Viiliiation. The Government had l>p<>n ;i-ked to provido for rowduatiou four J yiar-* ay;o, but they had done nothing ! in regard to it. In the niesintimo tho small remnant of Crown lands was l>eing (juiekly frittered away. They .should ompha.<ise the fact that there should he no furlhi.-r idienarion. Crown hinds were iriven ■;iiv;iy Ui.st yvnr to the vviluo of HDmerhing'liko .EoO.OlX). «nd the total: revenue from territorial souiccs la.«t year was a paltry £287,530. In spite of the , <'iicrmou> increase in the ralno of the* : public 0.-tnte, all the colony received in ! land taxation last year was £302.801. | Their k'gL-lators ncni blind to the mi- ; 1101'f.Hiice of this groat question; in fact, they were as ignorant as calves about it. They were playing into the ham's of pirates, landowners, and thieves— for he regarded all landowners as thieve-. >! r Hoed alfi:> objected to any re- ' piuV.a'.ion of existing contracts, n< the colony had entered'into a covenant with ih<W leaseholders and it hliould bo upheld. .Mr A. liowr (Auckland) supported the .amendment. Mr D. McLaren. (Wellington) said the motion and annndnient opened up three j.suc—(li the abolitiun of the of Crown lands; (2) «nd the application, of the ]>rinciple of revalnation to future j lease.-, both of which tho Conference, apposircd to )>e agreed about. Ihe third, relating to the position cf applying revaluation of existing leases was t!ii> only cue in which there. «a-s any diftcrencf of opinion. Ho thought they n:iglit Ikivu disposed of the first- two, and taken tho other separately. He went on to quote the Lord Chief Justice of Kneland as an authority in support or tho principle that the State h.nd a riglit to regime any lands which might he required for the general good without compeiii-alion. He intended to support tii" motion. Mr J. Hμ rr (Canterbury) f=4jd th-* qiK'.-tion reselved itself into one-of tho right of any person to take, something that did not belong to him. He consM«r«l that the motion was quite ju.st in so far as one body of men took away something that belonged to tho de-.-cencNnt 'of someone else. The Government had given away >om> thing for which they were simply trustees, and the fit-i p'Tsons to lx , considered were tiie rightful owners of tho land. Tho amendment tvps then put and lost.

Mr Brren then moved as a further amendment —"That the -words 'at Hie death of the present lessee' be deleted, and that the following be sub-<titutod, •for a period of fifty years from the date of the. le;u-e.' " He points! on) that if revaluation only tnke. place at the death of the Ip-wc, the provision might operate unfairly when one lessee died young '.md another lived to an old age. Mr "Westbrook seconded the. amendment, -which was carried by 9 votes to Mr Prut! moved as n further .irnc7U l Tien!—"Tkit the following words be added:. 'That hare comppn.'Mtion be p:iid for any v.al:i.iti'-n in the len^e.. , " Mr Br«e.n seconded the amendment. The C!:flirr"«n renlyine to a suggestion by Mr Hampton, that a retrospective revaltintion would not be a breach of contract tvirh h-ssros. «aid tliere was n di-tinet br-aoh of contract. l;eeati-e the Sate had ent«"-red into a contrnrt 'vih nn individual Ouit he should ho'<l ocrta-n l:>n' 7 s ior HUD \<nr~, ;n <•> rental value. To revalue and to increase tli.it rent must certainly be a breach of contract. The amendment was then put. and was supported by Messrs Paul, 13reen,

"Wallace and Rosser, against the rest of the Conference. Tho motion, as amended, was thon carried on th« roiws.