SETTLEMENT POLICY CRITICISED.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 952, 20 October 1910, Page 2

SETTLEMENT POLICY CRITICISED.

QUESTION OF PRICE. INTENTIONS OP THE GOVERNMENT. When the Land. Bill was reported with amendments to tho House of Representatives yesteiday afternoon, , ' Mr. T. E. Taylor (Christehurch North) urged strongly that the Canterbury runs should not be disposed of by auction. (A Government supporter: "JJfcar, hear.")' Ho had received numerous'letters of protest on this point,! both in regard to tho southern runs and thfc Amnri runs, and ho hoped tho lands would be disposed of ia. ballot, at a piico_fised by..the Govern

ment. : I£ this were - not done, the. large I landowners wouid by one means or another secure theso lands for:the next 21 . years.., In regard to the Glenwye properties, unquestionably no one but the present lessee, could get possession under the circumstances the land was held. 1 ' . Mr. laurensoit (Lyttelton) expressed the hope that the Land Bill would do something to help the "small man" to got. on to the land. No district had! suffered somuch in the past as Canterbury from the large landholder. From the very first it was blasted "By the land monopoliser: In seventeen years, of unexampled prosperity, the population of Auckland'had increased by 93,000, Wellington bv 96,000, and. Canterbury by only 36,000. "in Canterbury the increase had been mainly in the towns. Akaroa ■ County in ten years, had decreased by 261, Ashley by. 607, while Gcraldine had increased by 103, the total net increase being only 256 people. Such a condition of affairs as obtained,in; Canterbury was a scandal, and only a drastic land policy could cure it.

A Singular Matter. • Mr. -Hine (Stratford) declared.'that Mr. Laurenson's,remarks were.a scathing condemnation of the .Government in regard to its land-policy. Ho referred to a case of a , young man who resided at Mangaweka on a six-abre .section. » His-wife drew the marble for another, section. The New Plymouth- Land: Board-informed her that ..she: had not been, successful,- and returned the deposit.. Asked the reason .why • the section had been refused, the board replied that itiwas. unable:to-com-ply with; the .'request; That case looked •like one of favouritism. ' The husband •was a ;baker by trade,, but .hadbeen brought up to agriculture and could turn his hand to anything. . Here then was a case where a man had been refused even a lease of a piece .of land.- I: '. , Mr. Russell (Avon) said that there-was just as good dairying land in Canterbury as iii Taranaki. He regretted that; the Government had.riot framed some'means of making the Land for Settlement Act more energetic.;; The Minister - had; more than once. stated .that the;' Government could not acquire ah estate at a reasonable price. There should be; a system under which the owner would not: have •all the say-in-regard-to.-the price-that was to be.paid. As it was:the cream>fthe- population' of : Canterbury, drawn ■to other! parts of tho Doiniriion. What was wanted was the opening .up ;of : . more, land; in the .South..lsland. In: the South. Island there were . quite : a; number", of very . large estates, which should bo subdivided. • .. . .- •' - •••.'' ... ;' Remarks by the Premier.: '.'The Prime Minister deprecated a dis- v cussion at that stage' of the Bill.: He thought it. was searcelyfau- to suggest that the Government .had"not been active in land settlement , for.' the.past year: .or two. j, The Lands! report showed that' a great deal had been done last . He recognised the difficulty securing land owing to the fact that the owners,-were putting, excessive values. on their ' land. The Government wbiild; endeavour .to get over that difficulty. • -.!' •Mr; Hall: How are you going-to dojit? - Sir Joseph 'AVardWe. are' going •to ask the House ..this ",session' to effect the change.' ; Under'; the . present' . system; .by .which the. Government had to' give 10 per cent.' above the' valuation, - people ; were putting \up -;thc - prices" of; their- land.:. - Mr: Allen i-.They aro doing !it under the slaw, ■;

■ Sir.: J-oseph Ward:' That is- quite:; cor--recti :He added that ' the . Arbitration ,Court experience had been on the .- whole unsatisfactory,..'arid . the prices'- paid -in some, instances.;had; resulted in settlers being saddled for years with reatals 1 that were; too high; ■. What they, should arrive .at wis al fair.Vaiid' jiist >payment>for the land.-takeix—not an excessive value such; as ; was passible ; even - under the Arbitration' - Court.. -He:.^mentioned '■ ail. opposite case "where a • man's land had been; at so. low. a. value that- even if taken plus the. 1 ten percent, it: would have-ruined the man. That case; was allowed to stand over because, it. was not the - policy':'of.: the,. Government ..be.causei iof the,' great power they '.possessed to r.uin -anybody'., : There 'was' no doiibt: that "-the landowners had beish . advised by their:.lawj-era.; tp put-up their valuations! 'As the outcome., of., this i the ; Gov.erhhient. hadfound x great difficulty : .in acqliiring' land. 1 ' sys•(ein jv'as unsatisfactory, vand...the present, system., was also .unsatisfactory. il;There should be' some economic. system.-- by. whicji . tha "Government ..under -.compul-' sory clauses oould aot ' effectually. , The matter, was :, under careful' examination just now to see;: whether, .the GoVernment could .submit a practical proposal. ,\''Mr^'.-T;. : ,-E;;-Taylor r- ; tax' is -the only thing for it. • - .' Sir Joseph Ward ■ conti-irued. that" he had realisM : Government became' a: laige in. the market values 'would' go ' up-to an extent that. would make it dangerous for . the Government: to continue .'acquiring' land.' '.Under, the' present systems of - graduated. tax : : a, good-,; deial: of -land was being put on' the market. . :

Jfr. T.-E. Taylor: Only the.fag-ends of estates.. . • : ft.'".iP

Ths Prime Minister (continuing) said that "fit; would Botiido.'to-go: in for a confisoatiiry; tax .flii/ilaiid or; anything/.els®. - . The : whole policy ?of the Administration was closer settlement:. ■ : It had . to. be remembered ithat! compared'.-with 1 Australia and other countries -New .Zealand was''a'''small"". ; o6nhtry^ !;, ;iSo:'-far ..as tbs future was concerned, ,iri:.;the;, matter of settlement the'Ciowttrlands.-would have t<> ; remaiii, in a\'secondary. /position.'. We must' 'rely/. on the•" acquisition oflarge estates, ".and .also - smaller, estates.! v:By. small estates : ho meant estates which • the ernirieiit'. for .sale.' As.regards ;ths com-' plaint in regard .to, want'! ofe' further settlement; in Canterbury, this whole, country shodd 1 be: treated as 'one in such an : important' matter, u .-To,-, attempt Ato' ■for(»V6dm«;linds';;bi'-ih«"''iQMket ! ':''would lead 'to 'disaster. ;.Eeferring.;to" thc . ; pas^ toral ; lands in Canterbury, Sir Joseph said. that :• it: would- bring. ■ ruin to vsome settlers ! if the Government went as far ■as some people... urged/,lt was bettor for the Government to pay a good price for good land' and give tsettlers any opportunity. to. get a, reasonable-sized property at a reasonable cost than to place a man on a dreary piece; of land where he could at best earn only a bare living. Mr. Hogg (Masterton) said that the.only remedy "against; large: holdings was taxation. 'The minimum of ..£40,000 proved-. value, in the case of ther gradu-; ated tax -.was far - too.; high.. He believed that the man' .who owned two iarms. was- enjoying! a 'luxury., ,To :/ hi:s mind, one 'farm!f of amplesize was, sufficient for any man. ■.!!■" Views of Mr. J. Allen. ' Mr. Allen (Bruce) said that most of the : members !wanted te.see closer settlement on nn equitable basis. Hi knew ■that some-, men .had,in order' to, protect their lands from, purchase,; put an.abnormal valuation on their properties. But this was being done under the liiw. As regards the complaint that there, should be more settlement ,in Canterbury, : ne did not'believe' was'.- a just ; complaint. Last 'year more land for settlement lands' were opened in Canterbury ; than in-any other district.' ; :;! '.'■/■ ■■■<".:'<■ .. A member: Still,' it was not enough. ; Continuing,'! Mr. Allen -'said that . 'the whole.;'.tr6\ible ; was caused owing:', to - the!' fact that;.the Government .had?,not .the money to buy estates. !-"-'! Sir Joseph :.Wardi That_.is not correct'.' Mr. Allen (continuing)' 6aid that the Government had devised all kinds of means. of bringing about ..closer settlement without the necessity for direct purchase. ;. The reason .why tiie price! of estates was so'high was; not! because tlie. Government was. in'the .field'to purchase, but owing to.the godd' L markets,'-etc. .The fact that the Government, was m the field had really tended to. reduce the price of land. -' -Nowadays big .owners, did not sell to other- big ow-ners.'. ; The graduated', tax was a fair means of reducing the 6ize! of .largo estates, so* long as it was not mado confiscatory. ; ' Members might be surprised to '.learn that-an; owner., of an estate worth V£200,000 : had to ; pay! ih taxation „£5533 yearly, or , over 2J per, cent. What .was to'be done'in such a.case? A member: 'Conflscate.it: Mr.' Allen: No,- Ldon't believe in confiscation.'. Continuing, Mr. Allen said that the taxation was undoubtedly very heavy. " "Mr. Poolo: That is not as good as utilising the estate for close settlement. ■ V Mr. Allen: Don't you think that it is a heavy' onough tax?.. ; Mi-. T. E. Taylor: No, 1 don't. Mr.i Allen: Well, I-do. . , "We Don't Want More Money." Mr. Allen went on to say that, if the owner ■ of such ah estate was earning only four per cent. ' to live per cent, out of his property it; was a huge tax. ; Then L

again, take the case of a man with an'.V : estate worth ,£IOO,OOO. •Ho had to pay - close pn two per cent. Many estates had already been broken up as a . result of r. : graduated land: tax system. -If there' came a year or; two; when the markets ;' V were not bo good- a. great many more would be broken'"up/ Last year over : 100,000 acres of land for settlement-lands :•• wore'opened'! lip,. .: If the Government;" wanted in oro' money, to carry out its lii'nd '■ -; for settlements policy •it should bring '■•'"'■■ down a Loan Bill tor the purpose. ' .-.-.• Sir Joseph :"We don't-want more money j <£240,000! of . the . anjount, : available last..;'.!; year was not expended. ..! \ . : Mr. Buxton (Geraldine) held that it 1 ' would be wrong to put another twist in. I. tho graduated' land tax. As much! lanij • as, the." Government. could- deaj with, %asS'!■'. being offered "to the Government in Can- !' !. terbury.; at the /same price .as-.was>being .. '• fixed in the- case of private buyers.; The :?. - owners had through him offered.-(o ■ tha ; ;.y ; Government up to .120,000 'acres* in'.Can-'„',; terbury. Only last week. an owner of- jfered an estate ; of 20,000 . acres to thai ' Government;. Ho had oflered that if it ■ would facilitate; matters lie would take ;• 4i-per cent, debentures! ;. -. ". Sir Joseph:';W-e: would -not' give 45 per' • cent, debentures to . anyone. .'• '•• A Prophecy.

Mr. Hanan (Invercargill) said that-at • the ; next election' the landless ; ; ! people*;, H-ould»speak- : .w - ith •:a'.stronger;:!vdice!!th^! > '. they had -ever done iii; the past.,.ln Ausr.-. tralia and Great Britain, they; were doing:'-' the right thing in putting ■increaseii,,taxa< 1 tion on the land. Tie advocated ail .-in-' : crement - tax ..and' tlfe stopping I !'by , ~!ihe i: - Government oflancl speculation. ; It was' then agreed .tKat/the report should,, be ' received,and!'; MsoSthattho' minutes should bo-.' printed..-. -- . .-;■