LAND BILL.

Press, Volume LX, Issue 18182, 19 September 1924, Page 14

LAND BILL.

MORE AMENDMENTS. i'FBISS ASSOCIATION TELIGIAIf.) "WELLINGTON. September IS. In the House of Representatives tonight-, the Minister of Lands (Hon. A. D. McLeod) brought down a series or amendments to the Land Bill, the majority of .which were of purely, a machinery nature. The Hcv.se went into .committee to consider them.

Iu Clause 20, the Minister proposed that where more land v,-an taken for public purposes under the Public Works Act than was necessary the land- would be taken over by the Lands Department.

Mr'W. A. Veifeli pointed : out that if land was not used for the purposes for which it was taken, the former owner should have the opportunity of buying it back before it was taken over by the Lands Department. The Minister explained that this right still remained to the former owner under the. Public Works Act. The Lands Department would take land over only if the original or>adjoining owner did no.t wish to purchase it. The amendment was agreed to.

In, Clause. 165 it was proposed to increase by five years the license to occupy rural land which the occupier was converting into freehold under the deferred payment system. The Hon. J. A. Hanan said the amendnier.f was a - confession that the freehold system had failed. If. the freehold had been u success, such an extension would not have been necessarv.

Mr F. I.ang3tone said that while lie did not agree with" the' freehold tenure he agreed with the amendment, because he bieiv of many such settlers who, owing to the slump, were, in difficulties. This extension would enable them to pull through. The', Minister explained that this concession would be administered by the Laud Boards, who would discriminate beiweeii. those settlers who required to take advantage of it and those who did not. The amendment was agreed to. The Minister proposed to amend Clause 21G by providing that if the transfer of a lease of Crown land took place within five years of a concession in rent, the Crown could claim for the conceded rents, but not if the transfer took place after the five-year period. This, said the Minister, was intended to get over the difficulty which followed upon the piling up of conceded rents.

Several members objected to further concessions at the expense of the State. Tf rents were piled up they should be paid when a sale took place. The Hon. J. A. Hanan said ,it would simply encourage gambling in land. The Minister explained that the amendment would facilitate the finance of those settlers who were loaded up with liability for conceded rent. He i admitted, that some might get away with the concession from the State, but that would be a small affair compared with the benefit derived by those who remained on their holdings. To .test; the feeling of -the House, the Hon. J. A. Hanan moved to make theterm seven years instead of five.: On .a' " division Mr Hanan's . amendment was defeated by 36 votes to 28 and the Minister's amendment was adopted. The Minister proposed to insert a new. clause providing that when ox. the joint recommendation of the Minister and of the Commissioner of State Forests tie Governor-General is of opinion that it is desirable that any company, whose, object or principal object is afforestation, should'be allowed to acquire any land in excess' of the maximum area that jtmay be acquired or -Held Under this Act, or under the Land for Settlements Act, 1908, such (company may, nofcvithstanding anything to the contrary in this or any other Act,'acquire such land' irrespective of its area, or of the area of any other land already held by such com'pauy. '

Mr Holland objected' to this because ,it was handing over the work of afforestation to private' individuals. It f.hould be kept in the hands of the State Department, which,was a very live one.

Mr F. F. Hoekly claimed that the land in question was'not in the hands of, the Government, and there . were fhonsands of acres in the Dominion suited to nothing but growing trees.

Mr O. J. Hawken considered the clause a most valuable one.

The Minister said the' State eould'not do : this work as well as - a company, because it was handieapped through the Shortage of both money and labour.

Mr Holland contended that the State had. more- command' Of money than any company, and if a company could get labour why eould the State not get it?

Mr Wilford said he knew air about the company in whose.. interests this clause was drawn. It was an Auckland company, and he did not like the look oi* it. *The clause was too cutely drawn for his liking, but all those who were opposed to it could do was to have a division- and put the. responsibility on the Government.

Mr J. A. Leo maintained that a company -would nob risk any of its own money. They would go on the market with the concession which the clause gave them, and would risk the public's money. Mr Hawlcen argued that there' was too much tree-planting to do for the State to overtake it. The State had not the nion<jy, and there were ten million acres to be dealt with.

The Prime Minister made a general appeal in favour of afforestation, contending that no effort should be spared to encourage it. There was-, a great deal, of land in the Dominion fit 'for nothing else but tree planting.

» After further discussion the clause was challenged, and on a division it was added to the Bill by 37 votes to 25. The schedules were then agreed to and the Bill was reported with amendments.