LAND SETTLEMENT. BILL IN THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.

Evening Post, Volume LXXVIII, Issue 140, 10 December 1909, Page 8

LAND SETTLEMENT. BILL IN THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S VIEWS. AN INTERESTING DISCUSSION. The second reading debate on the Land Settlement Finance Bill in the Legislative Council yesterday was responsible for an interesting discussion, to which the Attorney-General contributed not the least readable portion. In moving the' second reading, Dr. Findlay declared that the question of settlement was far more important than tlie question of tenure. The drift v of the people to the towns had fo be stopped. Ihe success of a measure like that before the Council did not depend ho much on the terms as the spirit in which it was administered. It was anticipated that just an good results would be obtained under the Bill as had been the case under the Land for Settlements Act. The Hon. W. W. M'Cardle supported the Bill. The Hon. John Rigg thought that the Bill was capable oi producing great evils. It ignored the claims of the landless who had not .capital. The Bill made no provision for those who were most in need of assistance. Personally he would hr.ye preferred an energetic administration oi ihe improved homestead system. There would always be gambling in land while the State did not take tho unearned increment. The Bill was well intended, but it was a bad proposal. He believed tho Council would be doing the Government a valuable service if it rejected tho Bill. It was badly conceived, ill digested, and ill considered. He would vote against the measure. A FARMER- SPEAKS. The Hon. J. Anstey baid the principle of the Bill was a thoroughly sound one, but he proposed to criticise portions of it. The Land for Settlements Act was very fast reaching the limits of its possibilities. Already five and a half millions had been borrowed under' it, and still the demand for land was insatiable. The Act contained within itself the elements of its own defeat, i.e., the weight of its financial responsibility. Again, if, in disposing of leaseholds, anything bui the present price was fixed, the object of tne Act would be again defeated. Therefore, in so far as this Bill supplemented existinglegislation, he welcomed it. He considered, however, that the machinery of tho Bill would render it almost inoperative. Possibly small associations could be formed to purchase areas of, say, 500 acres under the Bill, but tho difficulties would 'be very great where a comparatively largo area, was concerned. It was all very well to say that the Bill was intended io help people without capital. Any man going on the land tmder this Bill would require at least .0500. DIFFICULTIES OUTLINED. Did the Attorney-General think twenty men could be got together to purchase an area of land and pool £500 each ? As soon ab the negotiations were entered upon for the purchase of a tract of land trouble would arise. Proceeding with the illustration of the case of the twenty men, he said that the committee set up under tho machinery of the Bill could bo expected to fix up a subdivision which would suit each individual member of the association. Some were bound to drop out, and the others were liable. Il v a member of tho association died during tho negotiations, or dropped out because he was. unable to meet further liabilities, the remaining members of the association were jointly and severally liable. He maintained that the Bill wouid never result in large areas being taken up and settled. Tho Bill might do something in a restricted sense towards the closer settlement of areas of 500 acres or thereabouts, but ho was. not aware that the conditions of settlement in New Zealand demanded that attention should be directed towards areas of 500 or 4000 acres. Mr. Anstey also maintained that the Bill made no provision against aggregation. Dr. Findlay interjected that the settlers under the Bill were subject to tho limitations of area imposed under tho Land Act — (640 acres of first-class land, and 400 acres in the Bill now before the House). TILE POSSIBILITIES. Mr. Anstey replied that he did not wish to suggest that a subdivided estate might be completely re-aggregated, but there was nothing to prevent one man purchasing fawns of 50 acres or more so long as he did not exceed the imposed limit in the Land Act. BILL SHOULD BE REDRAFTED. Tho machinery of the Bill would liave to ibe entirely redrafted. He suggested that the financial proposals of the Bill should be left as at present. The Government should/ not require the formation ot associations, but should deal direct with the owner, and when the purchase was completed the Government should then hand the land over to the Land Board. The board could subdivide the land into convenientlysized sections, have same ballotted for, and then requiio successful applications to take over the financial responsibility. He also suggested that encouragement should be given to large landowners to bring their holdings into closer settlement. One way to do it would be to encourage the leasing of these areas on a basis to be approved by the Government. The graduated tax could then be passed on to the genuine occupier. He recognised that the Bill could not be extensively amended, at this late etage, but lie hoped an amending measure would be introduced next session. He would support the second reading. • LABOUR MEMBERS OPPOSE. The Hon. J. T. Paul stated that he would have Bpokeri at greater length than he now intended to do had it not been for recent happenings. He declared no agitation had been so successful 'in this country as that organised by a reactionary political party for the freehold for the Crown tenants. The Government had mistaken noise for and had departed from the traditional policy of the Liberal Party. So far as the remaining Crown lands "were concerned, the interests of the landless had to be carefully considered. To his mind, the Land Settlement Finance Bill was an attempt to conserve the interests o{ the Land Bill. GOLDEN OPPORTUNITIES. He maintained that in the field of land legislation original opportunities were being offered the Liberal Government. The Government should do its best to prevent speculation iv land. Members of tho Council might smile, but he insisted that land speculation in a country like this tould at least be minimised. In no way did he waver in his allegiance to the leasehold 1 policy, but he thought the Government might enact a new freehold tenure — that of occupying ownership. In conclusion, he said he regretted that he would have to vote against the Bill. OTHER SPEAKERS. The Hon. J. M'Gowan supported the Bill because it was the best 'he could get. He was not satisfied with the lonure, but he hoped the Bill would have a good effect on the oountry and .the JLabow market. ,

The Hon. J. Barr approved the principle of fostering' closer settlement, but opposed the freehold tenure embodied m the Bill. Several others spoke. TENURE AND SETTLEMENT. In reply, the Attorney-General said the debate had covered a wide area. The only point of difference was tenure, but on the principle of the Bill there was no dispute, because it aimed only at subdivision of land already privately held. Freehold was a fetish with some people. What had been the result of the creation of freehold in Denmark? It had been the making of the country. There were 186,000 freeholders in that country, 'and it was only one-sixth the size of New Zealand, and produced three times as much. He pointed i out that the Bill did not deal with Crown lands, but with private lands. The question of tenure should depend on the circumstances and tho time and the place and the country. There were lands so remote from civilisation — where cultivation would so dishearten the stoutest hearts — that, even if the State gave the occupants the freehold, that would not be too much. (Hear, j hear.) 01" course, the position was very different in the case of the Land for Settlements lands. When the State leased a piece of Crown land to-day, it alienated it for ever. His object in referring to the subject was that there seemed to be an erroneous impression prevalent, that, after leasing its land, the Crown could havo it at a later date for the purpose of handing it over to other tenants when the population had become greater. As a matter of fact, the State alienated land as completely under the leasehold system as it did under the freehold system. Although it was called a j renewable lease, it was really n lease in perpetuity. All the State had a right to , was to prevent aggregation and to get the unearned increment if there be any. He wanted to point out that there was a drawback to that system from the point of view of the State, which -did not exist where there was freehold subject to a recurring charge, and this the Government was going to insist on in connection with its new proposals. TENANTS' POSITION. Wherever the new valuations at the end of a term of a renewable lease were very lowi the tenant would accept ; but wherever they were high the tenant would reject and call on the State to become a Crown debtor to tho tenant in respect of his improvements. Under that system also, if there was /a decline in the value of the property, the tenants would pay a lower rent. The Hon. Mr. M'Gowan : That is the right principle. v Dr. Findlay : The leasehold is not all gold from the point of view of the State ; and the freehold is not all dross from the point of view of the State, so long as the State secured a reasonable proportion of the unearned increment. He promised to havo the points -raised by Mr. Anstey placed before the Government, i If it were not too late, some of them might be adopted. The Bill was a novel measure, and doubtless contained imperfections. The best resufts would only be obtained by trying to make it a success. He believed that in a few years the Bill would have resulted in the settlement of 20,000 people on the land. On a division the Bill was read a second time by 16 votes to 3.