LAND TENURE

Evening Post, Volume CVI, Issue 29, 3 August 1923, Page 10

LAND TENURE

LEASEHOLD v. FREEHOLD

.THE OLD CRY AGAIN

SALE OF NATIONAL ENDOWMENT.

Leasehold v. freehold arguments were paraded once more in. the House of Representatives yesterday, following on a sympathetic recommendation from the Lands Committee in reference to a peti.tioil from the settlers in the Rotorua district that they should have the right to secure the freehold of their endowment lands.

-...'. Mr. M. J. Savage (Auckland West) (Opposed the recommendation, and moved that the report he sent back. "I am opposed to disposing of the national endowment," he said, "and if a report of the kind comes up 500 times, so many times will I oppose it." Many people thought they had a freehold, hut all they really possessed was a mortgage.

. .'Mr. W. S. Glenn (Rangitikei) declared the settlers in question were in a very awkward plight. They had been on ■ their land for fifteen years, "but were nn- ■ able to 'finance, and did not know at the ;time they went into occupation that the lands were national endowments.

: Mr. J. Bitchener (Waitaki) spoke of the unsatisfactory way in which some endowment lands were formed in comparison with places which were under .the freehold.

Mr. G. Witty (Riccarton) was totally opposed to any portion of the national endowment being disposed of, and it was for that reason that he supported the amendment moved by Mr. Savage. A SELFISH CRY.

■ The Hon. J. A. Hanan (Invercargill) denounced strongly any step in the direction of selling the national endowments. Such a cry was selfish, and was raised by some individuals merely to meet the needs of the hour. The freehold had resulted in speculation, and he did not want it to go forth that the leasehold lands of the Dominion were going ba-ck. That was only said to support the arguments of those who wanted the freehold. They should have vision and think of the needs of the future. ■

Mr. F. F. Hockly (Rotorua) said that year after year the question of land ienure was raised in the House, but all tile arguments adduced in favour of either leasehold or freehold failed to maJcea single convert, as each member adhered-to his own views. He agreed tvrth the' recommendation of the Committee iirthe case under notice, hecaiise the settlers; had had a difficult time. When they took up the land they were unaware- that it was national • endowment, and did not become apprised of that fact until afterwards. If there were some hopes_-of Government action in the future the settlers whose petition was 'being discussed would be encouraged to fa cc their difficulties afresh. _ Mr. J. R Corrigan (Patea), a believer in ,the leasehold tenure, said that if the jpetitjon were granted, the settlers shoujdbe allowed to acquire the freehold on a system of deferred payment

A SACRED POSSESSION. rMrrP. Fraser ("Wellington Central) advocated that national endowments were a sacred possession, to tie held in 4-fus.t. for the people, and supported the motion. He had seen some of the best -farming in.the -world done on leasehold -tenure. It was a short-sighted policy Jo expect everyone to have his own freehold. He woujd oppose any proposal to part with a square inch of national endowment land.

Mr. T. W. Ehodes (Thames) said the •very thought of the freehold or leasehold was. like holding a red rag to a bull to some members.

•Mr. Eraser: "We hate it very much." Mr. .Rhodes: "What we should coneider is not our little foibles, but the good of the country, and it would be a good thing if some people were eiven the freehold." ;Mr. W, E. Parry (Auckland Central): ■Some have got no hold at all." : -Mr. Rhodes: "I wish you would hold your tongue." (Laughter.) Perhaps the settlers now petitioning the House might iba given the right to take up their land ,on the homestead system. When some (people talked about the unearned increment they did not know what they were talking about. • ' Mr. Parry: -"You don't know what you are talking about." Mr. Speaker: "Order!" Mr. Rhodes: "Thank you, Mr. Speaker for giving me protection against thesa -mter]ectors; some of them are very tm:nily." (Laughter.) * - p -^ mßmter: "You are getting the wind

; TBTDOING PAST GOOD WORK. : Mr. .J: Edie (Clutha) advocated nartional assistance for holders of leasehold properties. The national endowments were given to the country in good faith, and; he did not think it right that succeeding Governments should come along.and undo the good work of ■tn.© past. ' Mr. H. E. Holland (Buller) said it -of the freehold. If. the education en - ; dowments were disposed of, there would immediately be a demand for money fiom other sources for educational purposes. The logical conclusion to d£ . : posalof endowments would be that the ~'?F l'° u]d he gradually whittled away rwnf,lfl T °m }?? sehold to freehcld -would make no difference to the man rwho worked the land. If the holder hSS : the right to get a mortgage, instead of ha Vln g the State for a landlord. hewouW have the mortgagee as his economio mas:that befort 1103: Wn tt™ ** WOrse : . COUNTRY GOING BACK TO : :, WEEDS. •W^m 11'11'^ Agriculture (the Hon 11? 1 esPressed the 1 opinion the development of the Crown endowments in the country districts delh« f 6r l? Pn n oMJmts Possessing .the freehold. It was on account of thi endowment system that the country was :f° m S baf" to "eeds. A great p^t 7ft .the leasehold endowments to-day were ;a menace to the count ly . The Govern:fw TO W3S a adra^s^S endowments .that were depreciating every day, and ;the sooner the system was changed • civ- ! ? ng the people tht> right to the freehold and an interest of their own, the better jt would be for the country ■Z Mr A D. M'Leod (Wairarapa) did -not think any useful purpose woujd be .served by referring the report b:^ck to :the Committee, for it would only come ;.befoue tha House again, and tlier/e would once more be a freehold v. lease/hold discussion. .; The amendment that the report be referred -back was defeated by 88 votes to