THE LAND QUESTION.

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 12932, 11 October 1907, Page 8

THE LAND QUESTION.

LAND LAWS AMENDMENT BILL IN COMMITTEE.

(press association telegram.) WELLINGTON, October 10

After the Telegraph Office closed at two o'clock this morning, tho Land Laws Amendment Bill was further considered in committee. Mr Massey moved to exempt clay from wibswtion 2 of clause 15, under which a n-ivwvabl* lce«> do* not confer the right to remove minerals Tho proposal was negatived by 3H votes to 2G vote. Mr Massey moved to exempt kauri gum from tho clause. Mr McNab said kauri gum was not A mineral, and he tod been advised lhat it did not come under the clause. Tho Government did not intend that tenants should be rt*t rioted in the use of kauri gum. Mr Stullworthy culled for a division, aud 1-ho amendment ww agreed to by 41 votes k> 21 votes. Progrct-e vivs reported, and tne HoiiAy ros© at 2.2j a.m. During tin- afternoon tho House reEumwl consideration <>*' tlu> UliL At Hibs.rti«u 4 of <lauso }«—"" shall Ikj lawful for tho Board, with So eoUeut ot th, Minister t« gran to tho owner of a renewable kuoo a license to extract or remove any minerals, except gold, sivcr, and coal, from the. hind m <or.oidorat.on of such rovaltie.s or other |Kiyiiicnt», and on such terms und conditions, as the Board and tho Minister think fit, provided that nothing herein shall lntorfero with the operation, of any enactment relating to mining in reject to tho land subject to tho loa.se — Mr J a me* Allen moved to Btriko out tho word "coal." , The amendment was agreed to, ftna the clause, as nmended wa.s adopted. At subsection 4 of clause IC— "When and s<l long as tho pay moats bo made aro equal in the aggregato to oO per cent, of tho said capital value, the lessee shall for the residue of tho term have possession of the land freed from all covenants and conditions contained or implied in. tho lease, other than the covenant to pay rent and the conditions as to residence, but the lessee shall not thereby obtain any right to extract minerals or commit any cither waste or depreciation of the land"' — Mr Witty moved to reduce tho amount to 30 per cent. The Minister accepted the amendment, which was agreed to. Mr Herries moved to strike out the words ''for tho residue of the term." Mr McNab, in opposing tho amendment, said the effect of it would he to transfer renewable leases to tho lease-in-perpotuity. Mr Horrics said that in moving tho «mcndmcnt ho desired, if possible, to make these leases as near freehold as possible. The- amendment was negatived by 39 votes to 24. Mr James Allen moved an addition to the clause to provide tlwit lessees paying 30 per cent, of the capital value, should Iμ* relieved from all covenants and conditions, whether imposed under the. Land Act or the Land for Settlements Act, other than those referring to mining or mining operations.

Mr MeNab said the conditions imposed under the clause were necessary to prevent dummying. Ho added that the Bill provided that on payment of 33 per cent, of the capital value, tho tenant should bo> freed from the restrictions imposed by tho lease, hut the amendment went much further.

The amendment was negatived by 45 votes to 22.

Clause? 16 and 17 were agreed to without alteration.

At clause 18, which provides that the owner of a leaae-nvporpotuity may obtain a renewable lease in lieu thereof,

■Mr Wilford said he thought holders of a 990 years' lease were on a good wicket, and he could not think that any holder of a lease-in-perpotu-ity would surrender it for a renewable lease.

At this stage Mr Tanner read a letter from Mr Hugh McKenzie (brother of the late Sir John McKenzie), which boro out the statement that he (Mr Tanner) had mnde in tho House to the effect that Sir John McKenzie intended to alter the 999 years' lease in tho following session. Mr Hugh McKenzio's letter intimated that Sir John had agreed to tho 999 years' lease to save his Bill, and thet he intended to niter it to a term eonsiderablv under 100 years.

Clause 18 was agreed to unamended

At clause 19—"tho owner of a lease-in-perpetuity may purchase tho fee simple"—

Mr Massey moved to amend the clause by providing thet a lessee-in-porpctuity may acquire the freehold on condition that ho has fulfilled the conditions of improvement and residence ; that ho is not the owner of lands sufficient to disqualify him under section 90 of the principal Act; nnd that he pays tho capital value upon which the rental of 4 per cent, per onnum is computed, also an. additional sum equal to the difference between 4 per cent, and 5 per cent, per annum on auch capital value. He also proposed that the lessee might pay off the capital value in instalments of not less than one-tenth. The object of the clause, 'Mr Massey said, ives to enable a lessee to put himself on tho samo level as a man who took up land on the occupation with right of purchase teaure. He did not desire to include land-for-settlements land in the proposal.

The Premier pointed out that retrospective legislation of « wholesale nature was involved under the proposals of the leader of the Opposition. It wa,s practically giving the tenant a present of n iargo sum by reason of the enhanced valuo of the property, which had been contributed to by the community. Ho admitted that the tenant had a certain interest in tho enhanced value, but he contended that it could not be imagined that a private landowner would adopt such a course. He added that what it was proposed to give under the Bill was fair to the State and fair to the people.

Mr M«ss»»y said he was asking Parliament to consent to n modification of the original arrangement, which he considered would be of benefit to both the State and the tenant. There was not much cry for the unearned increment —it was hard-earned increment in. most cases. The Crown had recognised the right of the settlor to the unearned increment by nllowing the original lessees to sell their leases to other persons.

Tho Premier said it would not be fair to give any sei-tion of the community tho benefit of tlie appreciation of the value of land at the expense of other sections of the community.

Mr Jennings supported tho amendment, and urged that settlors who had gone out into the baekbloeks and suffered ell the hardships of pioneer life were entitled to obtain the freehold at tho original value, plus 1 per cent.

Mr Hanan asked if those men who wero asking for the freehold were considering th« in,terrsts of the State. Those who believed in honesty of purpose and maintenance of agreements should prevent the State being robbed of thousands of pounds.

After further discussion the amendment was negatived by 30 votes to 2-1.

Tlio following: i» the division list : —

Fnr tho rvniendment (l>l):—Jlessrs James Allen, Rol!:irrl. Dillon. Fic!d, (In.'onslude. Hardy. Hemes, Hr>rnsl>y. UaustoTi, Jeruiingß. Kidd, Lung, Lt-th-

bridge, Lewie, T. Mackenzie. Mander, Massev, Okey. Remington, Koss, Svmes*. Thomson, and Wilford. "Against the amendment (39): — Messrs E. G. Allen, Arnold, Barber, Barclay iluddo. Carroll. Colvin. Duncan. Ell. Fisher, Flatman, Fowlds, A. L. D. Fraser, Graham, Gray, Guinness. Hanan, Hozan. Izard, Kaihau, Laureiison, Lawry. McGowan, McLnchlan, McNab, Macpherson, Millar, Ngata, Parata, Poland, Poole, Seddon, Sidey, Stallworthy. Tanner, Witty, Wood, Sir William Steward, and Sir Joseph Ward.

At sub-clause 17—"The provisions of this section shall not apply to land which i> subject to tho provisions of tho Land for Settlements Consolidation Act. 1900."

Mr M,assey moved to strike out the word ''not." with a view to inserting the word "also." . Ho contended that t.his would greatly assiist in redticins bi>rrowiiifi for tho purpose of acquiring lands t'oi settlement. If it was right to grant the ire' hold to L.I.P. tenants at the present value, it was only logicd iwid light to grant it to tenants ui:dor the Land for Settlements Act. The amendment was lost by 37 votes to 29.

Tho following is the division list

Kor tlu> amendment (20) —Messrs Jas. Allen. Hennrt. Bollard, Dillon, Duncan, Field. Fi.sher, A. L. 1). Frasor, W. Fra.<or, GnHMislade, Hardy, Hemes, Horn shy, Houston, Jenninps, Lnng, Lewis, T. Mackenzie, M.-ic-phersou, Major. Malcolm, Mander, ,\l;i~.sey. Okey, Koss, Symes, Thomson, and Wilford.

Against tho amendment (37) —Messrs K. G. Allen, Arnold, Barber, Barclay, Buddo, Carroll, Colvin, Ell, Flatinan, Fowlds. Graham, Gray. Guinness, Hanan, Hogan, Izard, Kaihau, Kid«l, Lauren.sou, Laivry, McGowan. .\lcLaolilan, Mc.Vab. Millar, Ngita, Parata, Poland, Poole, Remington. Seddon, Sidey,' Stallworthy, Tanner. Witty, Wood." Sir William Steward, and Sir Joseph Ward.

Clause* 10 as a whole* was carried. Clause "0 i)a.<wo<l without amendment.

At cLiuso 21, ivliieli prnvides for modification of residence conditions 111 the case of town dwellers wlio desircnl to tako up l«n<l for themselves or fasnilies.

Mr Tanner expressed unqualified dis-n-T>proval of tlw clause, uhicli ho s.ii'l would tend to keep land unomijiied. What this Dominion needed, lie said. ■was bona fide settlers, and ho intended ta call for a division on th© dmise.

After anmo- discussion it was ii.grrovl. on the motion of Mr MoNnb, to amend tho clause liy providing that regulations drilling with this class of so lector should Iμ l referred to e;u\h branch of tho legislature. A new paragraph inserted by the Lands Committee, providing that "all applicants under this section shall l>c deferred to all other applicants'' was struck out on tho voices. Tho clause as amended was carried by 52 votes to 9. * Progress was reported on tho Bill, and tho Houso rose at 0.55 a.m. ASSESSMENT BILL IN' THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. (special to "the press.") "WELLINGTON, October 10. The views of tho Logislativo Council upon tlve Government's land policy w< , ro expressed this afternoon when the Hon. Dr. Findlay (Attorney-Gen-eral) moved tho second reading of tho Land and Income Tax Assessment Bill, which has aJready been adopted by tho House of Representatives. There were two main features of tho Bill, ho said. Ono ivae to increase tho graduated land tax, and tlio other to prevent ite ovasicn, but both these were introduced with the idea of inducing, if not compelling, further subdivision of large estates. Tho Bill had gone through a good deal of stress and struggle, and represented the beet working compromise that coidd be arrived at, and also marked a big advance upon any other similar law in any of the King's dominions. Ho explained the Bill's provisions, showing how easily under the present law the tax could be evaded by joint occupation and collusive sales and leasew. It was admitted .by lawyers opposed to tho Government that tlie clauues dealing with evasion had been oxceedingly well drafted, and would be hard to overcome.

Mr Sinclair eaid tho iniquitous methods by which the land of England had boon wrested from tho people, was the blackest spot upon our history. Tho communal lands of England wero by fraud and trickery and under tho guise, of expediency, taken from tho men who had been tho backbone of their country in its times of trouble. Thus tho aggregation of largo estates went on. and the men who originally tilled their small holdings wero driven into tho towns. In his judgment land boro but a moderate, share of the burden of taxation. Tho duty paid annually upon tobacco—a mere luxury only foil £37,000 short of tho amount of duty paid by the holders of tho 37 millions acres of land which had boon alienated in New Zealand.. Tho Now Zealand system of limiting the area of individual holdings was a moderate one, preserving a sound and prudent course, and avoiding extremes.

.Air Paul welcomed tho Bill as an indication to tho land monopolist that be had to give way to a more doserving claes. Ho preferred last vcar'n Rill imposing a specific limitation, booauso under the no.iv measure it would bo possible for one man to own New Zealand, was prepared to pay tho graduated tax. There was no absolute certainty that tho Bill would burst up the. large estate?. Tho limit of exemption should have been placed below £-40,000. though not as low as £20.000. Time had made, great changes in the feeling in regard to limitation. Tho previous graduate*! tax was doolrired at the time to bn aiming a sorious blow at capital, and it only prised by a nwjoritv of Iβ. yet the Bill under notire. was unanimously passed by the House of Uvn. nwiitativrs, so progressive had . Ik'oii the tendency of late years. Flo quoted statistics indicating (hnt the taxation imposed by the Rill foil short of fho proposals of the Federal Labour Party exct-pt when tho capital value ox-' eroded £100.000. He contended that the Labour Party had helped to Liing nbont much of tlie- settlement of the. fontitrv by its combination with tho Liberals to pa.«=-s «ueh measures as thn Advances to Settlers Bill, and tho Land for >Wt]ernent Hill. Tf tlie pivscut Bill did not cause sufficient kmTj. division to satisfy tho land hunger, more legislation would have to be introduced. Ho welcomed tho Bill as n first instalment of a progressive land policy.

Mr MoCardle hailed the Bill with satisfart-ion. Advocates of a principle could not expect it to he brought fully into operation at once~ but the Bill provided a screw whicli. if not at first successful in nromotinc closer sub-division, could given 'another turn from time to time. The enormous increase, in the price- of p-ro-ducts of tho farm enabled men to buy or.t their nc-ighhours at hifth prices. *> that it evident something more than a tax upon canital value -«-as to ensure closer settlement. If it was possible to put a stop to th<> buying out of small settlers for tho aggregation of largo ertates h« hoped it would bo don«. He favour<d linitat'cn of inlividual holdinge, so tliat no capitalist could buy out small areas and depopulate n countryside, a.s lie had fioen done.

Mr Scotland declare! that uearlv everything a< i which could bo said ne:iiii>T tlu* landowner had Ih.mii sitKTtiJ, but town people were quiu> as

capable of triclas as the country pwpie "This is a Bill which shows the impure source from which it originated." ho said. '/It originated in the envious, unchristian Labour party—the unions of New Zealand, who" hate their country." _ Mr Paul • "Tlipv love their country." Mr Scotland went on to say there, •was no reason for the Bill, rho Government had tho power m its hards to acquire all tho largo estates. There was no occasion to have a "radiwted tax forcing the landowners to sell, because it could have, got them to sell in a quiet way. Ol course, it would require a large sum of money, but the purchases could be made grad. uallv. It was a /Socialistic Bill. Ho did "not know whether Mr Beu Tillett had boen consulted, and it too pity the Government had not held tho Bill back for Mr Keir Handle: ho might have offered some very valuable sugge.ition«. It was only the first of those Socialistic jrropoMls which would frighten capitalists away, force employers into the Bankruptcy Court, and doee tho English money market against

U-V. Mr Rig? remarked that the prerious ipoceh might well l« described as a voicr- from the past. When h« thought of the views uttered by a majority of tho members of the Council iiftr'n years ngo, \v almost felt as v it was 'a. voice from tho grave. Hfl resreitod the Government had not carried out its land proposals _of last fc-is-ion, 'ix<-a li.-w.' the limitation sy»tetn uo".M h-iv" I'Tf.n more effective, and the Bill could have been got through. It was unfortunate that tho •rniduatul tux wiir not to como in until Janiir.rv, IDfK».

Mr S:itn;i ■! said it was a weakness tlMt the <iilici.il wlwso duty it was to collect tho land tax had also to decide upon the hon:i fides of pnrtnor>hip and other arrangements for subdivision. He thought it would bo a regrettable thing if the country was driven by the necessities, of tho case to provide that a man could sell hie ctafe t'> five strangers arriving from the- Old Country, but could not make \ho same arrangements villi five of his sons. Looking tit the. general principles of the Hill he was in favour of it. The debate was adjourned.