MINISTER OUTLINES PROPOSALS

Evening Post, Volume LXXXVI, Issue 100, 24 October 1913, Page 3

MINISTER OUTLINES PROPOSALS

INCOME LIMIT TO BE RAISED. In the clause which permits city dwellers to take up land on which residence conditions may be dispensed with in certain cases, and limits the income of a man and wife to £3300, the Minister said he proposed to raise that limit to £350. The Minister referred to the clause which provides that the licensees of pastoral lands in the Hauraki mining district might acquire the fee simple, as the "historical clause." Wbcjn it was introduced in the House, there was (said Mr. Bell) a proviso attached which was deemed by some to grant a peculiar personal advantage to a- member. This led (added the Minister) to a very acrimonious discussion. It was explained that the interests of the State, the miner, and the- licensee were thoroughly protected in the new clause. Intimation was^ made by Mr. Bell that clause 37 (which extends to section 28 of the Land Laws Amendment Act, 1912) would have to be amended so as to ensure that the rights of small grazing leaseholds or renewable leases under the 1885 Act should be just the same — no more, and no less as those who obtained such leases some five or six years later. With regard to clause 43— -dealing with lands acquired under powers in mortgage — the Minister said he hoped to be able to submit a more feasible escape from the particular difficulty of this clause. It was a very serious matter to the landholders. It was necessary to encourage the mortgagees—^lessees must have finance. He was not sure that he would be able to provide a substitute. Touching on part 2 — special districts for roading purposes— the Minister expressed the opinion that members would agree with him that it was not always possible to provide roads to precede settlement. The land was there, and the people wanted it, and were impatient of the road making. Referring to the advantages given pastoral lessees, Mr. Bell Baid that unquestionably the pastoral lands of the 'country had gone back to a degree unthought of 30 or 40 years ago. Tenants, with their leases expiring, had allowed the land to run to wast© or exhausted it before the lease was put up to auction. ' NO MENACE TO OWNERS. !ln reply to a question, tho Minister said that the option of purchase of the freehold had been restricted to five years, because it was not thought advisable to have it spread over all time. Part 6 (private lands required for settlement), was explained by the Minis ter, who said that the purchase must 1 * necessarily be' governed by the money available. If, as had been urged by certain sections of the press, the land tax should be increased so as to compel large owners into subdividing, it would be manifestly unfair and unjust, the whole land market would be destroyed, and it would unjustly hamper the landowners. As an alternative to that drastic step, there were the Government's proposals^ No new power was asked for in this Bill — that powei was being only modified. No fairer proposal '(he thought) could have been made. He -denied that it was a menace to owners. The Government gave the owner time to prepare for subdivision or acquisition by tho State. It was an attempt to deal fairlj with the owner, and to further closer settlement. The Minister aaid he expected to . heai criticism of the provisions against the aggregation of private lands The law proposed was not a prohibition against adding acre to acre, but it was a direction to the owner that the Crown could acquire that second acre at the price paid for it. The proposals might not prove effectual— it was easy to laugh at them. But tho Government would not propose legislation that was tyrannical or "coercive—it aimed at controlling the land for the public interest. FOR AND AGAINST THE BILL Mr. Anstey stressed the importance of the measure. He would criticise the Bill in no he-stile manner, but he must • express his opinions, which would, in many cases, differ from those of the Government and the Minister. The Bill had quite a number of good points* Among th» particularly good points was the proposal improving the tenure of pastoral leases. It was a step which should have ' been taken long ago. The proposal creating special roadway districts was commendable, as were those lifting the reserve from the gum lands, and for encouragement of tree planting. : COUNCIL TO BE DIVIDED. But there were proposals that were distinctly and viciously bad—they struck at the very root of tho land question. These were tho removal of the re3i'denco conditions on Crown lands and small grazing runs, and he intended to divide the Council on these two matters. Ho suggested that the best thing to be done in connection with the amendments and clauses of the Bill was to select some half -dozen mcc of practical experience, who would, with the assistance of the Law Draughtsman, go through the Bill, and deal with' the question of settlement, etc., in a practical manner. The clause which provided that the Land Board should decrease tho rent where the valuation of the land was found to be too bigh, was necessary. He emphasised the usefulness of this provision, since) the price of land for settlemeiit purposes was so exalted, and it took the lessees all their time to keep their heads above water. ONE OF THE GREATEST BLOTS. Doing away with tho residence conditions (in certain cases) -was, said Mr. Anstey, merely opening tho door to aggregation. It was absolutely vicious in principle. He would do his best to have this' clause excised, and he intended to divide tho Council on the matter. How svero they going to get schools in districts when iialf tho settlers were allowed to live off their sections? It was absurd, and one of the greatest blote, on the BUI, and he was surprised that a Government which stood for settlement, more settlement, and still muro settle-

tnent, should have Keen (it to include such a provision. Mr. Anstey was facetious at the expense of tho drafting of clause 23, which provides that, within a given period, tho lessee may plant to the satisfaction of the board not less than oue per centum of the leased land. It appeared to him that the clause- was drafted -in a hurry by a young man. What he had condemned in a. previous clause he condemned with regard to the removal of residential restrictions on small grazing runs. The Minister : You have tho proviso. Mr. Anstey: "The proviso! You can send up a ploughman, or a shepherd. .. ." Touching on the Hauraki pastoral leases, Mr.' Anstey expressed the opinion that the freehold proposals with regard thereto were going too far. Hon. members must not run away with the idea that simply to get the freehold was going to improve the land. If this land wore held under the leasehold principle it would not have been allowed to go to waste. The State should keep a controlling interest in this land. He intended to divide tho Council on the proposal to extend the right to acquire the fee simple to small grazing runs. There was no call for the freehold here, which would again open the door to aggregation. The perpetual lease was a tenure gcod enough for anyone. A TRUE PREFERENCE AT THE BALLOT. Referring to the provisions concerning preference qualification at the land ballots, Mr. Anstey asserted that so far a true preference had not yet been submitted. It was not preference provided in the clause — it was simply exclusion, and every time the law was altered it seemed to be made worse. He suggested that the Minister should agree to strike out the ' clause and have another framed. His idea was that in every ballot a married applicant should have as many chances as he had children, while in the case of a single man, he should be given chances equal to the number of times he had qualified as an applicant and had not been successful in obtaining a section. The Minister said he would be glad to have Mr. Anstey put forward a substitute clause. PASTORAL LEASES HIGHLY COMMENDED. Mr. Anstey, who continued after the tea, adjournment, referring to the Cheviot grazing runs, pointed out that tho twenty-one years' leases were just falling in. If this Land Bill had been in force now, the subdivision of the Cheviot leases would 'not have been possible. The Minister, explained that tho lessees had the light to renew unless the Governor .decided to take the land for closer settlement. The general idea of part 111., dealing with pastoral licenses, was one he could .not too highly commend. The tenure, it was undoubted, had a good deal to do with the deterioration of the land. Under the proposed tenure the land would gradually recover its productivity. In every one of these leases the residence clauses sb6uld be put. in,, so as to ensure separate occupation. Generally, he thought- that the whole of the clauses in this part needed revision. For instance, the rent should bo fixed by arbitration. Section 49, "... a person shall be deemed to hold a run if his wife,' or her husband, as the case may be, is the holder of a run," was the only one in the Bill, according to his idea, that went in any way towards preventing aggregation. . WHO ARE PURCHASING THE ' FREEHOLD ? Mr. Anstey reiterated his intention of not opposing the provisions of part 4, which concerns the purchase of the freehold of settlement lands, since, he explained, the House of Representa-. tives had passed it twice by a- large majority. ' Under this headiric the speaker quoted figures to show that in the first three months 11,633 acres had been purchased by various tenants straight out for cash under the purchasing clause— thera was a small exception — there had been purchased 11,633 acres for £15,822. Apparently it was only those who had money who could take advantage of the right of pur chase of l.i.p. leases. The speaker foresaw more aggregation under these proposals, or the purchasers using the purchasing clause for the purpose of absenting themselves from' occupying the land. Some security of tenure snould be given those settlers who, purchasing their land on the instalment system, failed to keep going — a very probable contingency (he suggested) when land was at so high a price. These ought to be able to fall back on their lease. He was very much afraid that, under clause 59, providing for the acquisition of "private lands required for purposes of settlement, there would be a big delay of 3£ years in offering" such lands at public auction. CONCERNING AGGREGATION. Referring to the provisions against the aggregation of private land, Mr. Anstey contended that the clauses only dealt with small areas, and did not touch the larger ones. Where did the proposals do away with the aggregation of leasehold and freehold? The only reason for aggregation was the freehold. Approaching Bis conclusion, Mr. Anstey said he wanted to enter a strong protest against this parting with the people's estate, with the security from which so much revenue was received, and parting with the right to prevent aggregation. EDUCATIONAL RESERVES. He could not see anything in the Bill to promote tho land settlement so much desired. The way in which some of the education, municipal, and such reserves, valuable and roaded land, was administered, wa3 a disgrace to all concerned. The Government Bhould oxercise supervision over these reserves. It was not -doing its duty until it passed legislation compelling these boards to pay due regard to the interests of their tenants — instances were cited of tenants, owing to oppresive rental conditions, exhausting high class land, and i then after two or three years dropping the lease. If this Government would not do its duty, another Government would. Reverting to the breaking up of large estates, Mr. Anstey said this could only be done by imposing a graduated tax on all the large estates, and reducing it in proportion as the smaller estates were reached. With that, there should be introduced conditions which would permit of the large landowners quitting their land to tenants on some system of hire — call it leasehold or anything else. He reiterated his opinion that the Bill went no distance towards bursting up the large estates. Residence on tho land must also be encouraged. What might be called the "freehold phase" would, he felt sure, only complicate further the great land problem. The hon. gentleman resumed his seat amid applause. BACK TO THE OLD CONDITIONS. Hon. Mr. Rigg praised the excellent and comprehensive apeech of the previous speaker. Ho could «co that when this Bill had become law, the country would be back to the old condition ot things that existed over '20 years ago. It was a little disturbing to one who was in favour of land nationalisation, but he would ehed no tears over it. It was a great regret to him to see tho eteady degeneration that had taken places in regard to land nationalisation in past years. Just when the Liberals should have advocated thii, on the platform, they deserted it. M'Konzie's Land AcL of 1892 contained an eloment that was altogether undesirable — 099 year*' lease, without revaluation—a condition worse than tho free-

hold. No serious attempt was made to stop trafficking in Crown leaseholds, and it had been going on ever since. Mr. Rigg told how, when tho M'Nab Land Bill, 1907, which permitted of tho individual holding 90 per cent, freehold, the remaining tenth being reserved to the State, was introduced, he (Mr. Rigg) moved in the Council that that tentn might also be acquired by the individual. The only one who voted for it was himself, and yet the position was that the party at present in power had adopted this principle, and so "dished" the Liberals. Continuing, the speaker said he was not sorry to see the whole freehold again, as it meant that the ground was cleared now of all obstruction, and thfc fight could be begun all over again. The debate was adjourned at 9.52 p.m. on the motion of the Hon. Mr. Paul.