THE LAND QUESTION.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 662, 12 November 1909, Page 3

THE LAND QUESTION.

Sir,—Tho proposals confyined in the Budget delivered by Sir Josoph'/Ward on Wednesday evening,are as complex 'as they"are"far-reach-ing." The most important of all are those dealing with Crown and Native lands, and it is surprising* to find that'tho Prime Minister .entertains a hope that theso will be swallowed holus-bolus during,the present short session. So .much debatable matter is introduced that a session in itself might well be. devoted to ,tho settlement of the vexed question of the disposition of Crown lands alone. . The affirmation of' the principle that . holders of Crown lands should-be entitled to the fee simple is in itsdf impontant. That, the House, as at present constituted, will make that affirmation is certain..Vlt is in the plication of tho prinoiple, however,, that there will bo a prolonged and stubborn fight. The question of whether there is reasonable Rround for retaining the national endowment of nine million acres oh the leasehold system will also open up a wide field for discussion. Beading between the lines, ono is forced to the conclusion that whilst the Government recognises the freehold, as the best tenure for tho State and the individual, itsis fearful of the so-called "land nationaliscr," atad consequently imposes conditions of conversion which are almost impossible. In the proposal' that ordinary. Crown tenants and tenants under the Lands for .Settlement, Act shall bo similarly treated, there is'nothing objectionable ,; It is in the treatment itself that arises the bone of contention.

In the first place, the period of two: years in which tenants are permitted to convert is altogether too short. It would be morally, impossible for a- tenant who has recently acquirod his selection to convert,in such a short space of time,' and it is questionable whether the older settlers, most of .whom have put their earnings into improvements, could succeed in doing so. And here at once appears the absurdity of. the. whole proposals. Does the Prime Minister seriously believe that Crown\tenants would, be prepared to . hand over to the State one-half of ;the difference between the original valuation and tho present unimproved .value,, when he knows that the improvements effected are never fully assessed when the unimproved value is being determined? Does he think for a moment, that the holder of a lease-in-perpetuity will surrender at once, or take advantage of the alternativo of surrendering over a period of 165 years, the value (ascertained'.by' State valuers) of one-half his improvements, when, by' application to the Land Board, ho can seoOTo a transfer and the whole of the value of his improvements? ■ ':.''■." : •;:■ ,: : . "■

•The qnestion at issue.-is whether the State is'entitled to any portion of what is erroneously termed • the "unearned, increment."; It is true that the expenditure of pnblio moneys increases the value of land. It must bo remombered, the occupiers of the land have pledged their estates to secure the payment Of interest upon the greater portion of these.public moneys.. That being so, are they not as much, nay, more entitled' to any small increment thus provided than the man owning building property in the town and city who, has derived greater social sad monetary advantages by the expenditure' of public' money? Moreover, if it be "conceded that'there' is such a thing as "unearned increment," why should the landholder-who rwishes4o<;convert his : lease into a freehold be the only sufferer? What of tho m'an who bought his freehold from the Natives at five shillings per,acre? Is.he to be allowed to go scot free? Is the leasc-in-perpetuity selector to be.allowed to pocket the increment simply because ho prefers transfer to conversion?• • :■-■■"' ■ - ■■■•.■:■ ■■■■ ■-■■-.■ ■~-.

Then, again, if thei State intends confiscating what it terms the unearned increment," is it prepared to make provision jEorthose.-rand, they are riot few in nnmber-^whose-estates will, if they have not already done so,, show a, decrement? In all fairness, the principle should be applied both: ways, if ; applied at all,.which heaven forfend! ■_'■[ ',' ;, ' . ; As'to' the/ proposed limitation of area, the Governmentr again shows a poor understanding of the conditions of. settlement.. Is it nol aware that tho eyes have already been picked out of, the greater portion of ,the : Crown lands of the Dominion? ; Will 1 it seriously contend that if&M acres; is not. too great'an ! area 1 of first-class landJor aman to hold within easy access .of the cities and markets, it,is,too much for one individual to hold in the"way-i baoks"? In' this connection; it might aoV be out of placfc to, suggest that a comraissioa of experts be' set up to determine what really is first-class:land, for it t is matter, of :notariety that hundreds acres o£ land which- have been. leased as .'first-class', are.'Jin. reality, second or third-class. ; :' There are many other : aspects of, the land proposals;; which might be criticised. ■ For instance, whilst'lt may.!be right that a man upon the land who has';a i 'familyVof'four and over (under sixteen years of,age) Should !recoivea rebate.in rent,:is it not. equally right that the man with a family should receive consideration when he wishes to convert to. a freehold?,. And, if the man upon the land, is to be encouraged to propagate, why should not the man in the townor city'bo given similar encouragement?. : ■ ,'. It is to be hoped, sir, that when the Bill embracing the proposals-of the Government is brought down, it will be widely circulated, that the constituencies will be enabled to oipress an opinion ; upon it. \, The measure outlined by the Prime -Minister is little short of revolutionary, and to endeavour, to force it through the. House without, first, consulting thevpcople would be monstrous.—l am, etc., ;?\-.'.'. ...*.'; ;■/ ■ -arthukh. yile;