THE LAND BILL.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2141, 25 July 1907, Page 2

THE LAND BILL.

views oj ' u^ i l l q' n l ' AUiJJ ‘ 1 ' INWVI^a Mlt ' W ' ij ' with the ohjwt or a “":K‘" I.r . far the ii'momicd Land l'" 1 , ci(ics with tlio views ot the baimcis | Union, n representative ol th “Tiinm” yesterday waited upon M* • W issant. Clayton, who from his close connection .with the Um°", *» B»id “the ill is a distinct improvement airJ* € P" there are, of course, minor P Ol upon Which wo differ. and wluch wM require careful scrutiny m the H M? 6 Clayton made it plain that ho was basing his opinions on tlio outlino of the Bill as published in the •mois Ho had that day received a copy of the Bill, which upon close perusal would no doubt be found to modify some of the details. To commmonco with, Mi Ohi> ton was anything lmt favourably » cd with the provision allowing ten , u ts to l>av up to 90 per cent ol ti e ! pital value, under the renewable lease tenure, the State to retain onetenth interest. What object was served ? A man did not want to go on paving 4 per cent, even on the reduced amount, and the could find hotter investment the Government is proposal was m n e copied more or less, from Mi Wy d; liain’s original Irish Hind Settlement Bill. The Irish people, howcvei. li.nl raised such an agitation that these clauses of tlio measure had to ho dropped, and others substituted allowing the tenants to purchase by instalments the freehold ol then pioperfies. Mr Clayton added that the Farmors’ Union advocated some.similar" provision, generally the option of the freehold under all tenures. The Government held out as a special inducement, that providing 50 per cent of the capital value was paid up the restrictions -hampering the leasehold tenure would he removed. But this concession was more apparent than real. Under existing conditions, tlio speaker pointed out, it was not incumbent on a. leaseholder to reside alter ton years —he could be an absentee landlord and the Land Board could not deny him tlio privilege. “ I got this interpretation direct from members ol the Land Board,” remarked Mr Clayton, “and it cannot ho gainsaid. Tlio alleged concession was no concession whatever. It would probably take a man ton years to got his hold ing into order, and a, bona fide set-

of his responsibilities before that time. - The provision that Land boards may, with tho consent of the Minister, remit rents for the first ten years under tho leasehold tenure's, if sufficient cause is shown, was a good move, and should meet with general approval. In soine districts where there was light country, especially in tho Auckland province, it was during tho first ten years that the struggling settler wanted all the encouragement the State could afford to give him. Settlement should be fostered in every possible way and this was a step forward.

Regarding the right given to l.i.p. tenants to purchase at present day values, Mr. Clayton said it was rather difficult from tho telegraphed summary to arrive at the exact terms. It was not clear whether the tenant would be given the benefit oi his goodwill or merely tho stated value of his improvements. “If the State’s interest in the land is apportioned by arbitration it should be a fair compromise,” be thought. The abolition of the l.i.p. tenancy, Mr. Clayton remarked, would meet with the- approval of the Farmers’ Union. The feeling throughout the colony was that the 999 years’ lease had proved unsatisfactory, and although some of the conditions of tho proposed renewable lease were capable of improvement, on tho whole the scheme was a very good one. The old l.i.p. had, as had often been demonstrated, been an absolute loss to the State. In the speaker’s opinion the argument of the greater facilities it afforded the poor man would nor stand critical analysis. In many instances the intending tenant under tin- Lands for Settlement Act had to satisfy the Land Board that he was in a sufficiently good financial position before lie was allowed to take up a section. This course had been followed in regard to the Wigan Estate in this district. Air. Clayton considered the new Bill disappointing, in that the option of the freehold-**"»not iilso extended -te-leasehold tenants under the Land for Settlements Act. Tho arguments in favor of the freehold applied quite as forcibly to this class of tenant, and no doubt this would be one issue tha 1 ' the Oppositionjivould raise. Tho State would roallv gain. At present ill - Government were paying in the great majority of cases i per cent, on tin: money borrowed for the resumption of estates, and let tho land at a rental of 4 per cent. Out of the revenue derived the Government had to pay the cost of administration, with ail allowance of 10 per cent, rebate to tenants who paid promptly, so that the net proceeds from rentals would not lie much above 3 per cent. ; clear loss of about 1 per cent, to Mi? State. Better use could be made of the fund by allowing the sale of the freehold and devoting .tho pro-

coeds to opening up further estates foe the landless. With a, constant turnover of the revenue in. this way the raising of a couple of millions would .probably suffice for all the land resumption that could be ■advantageously. undertaken. The Farmers’ Union contended that the o.r.p. was th" fairest form of tenure, giving opportunities to the small man. Under

the o.r.p. the rental was 5 per cent., and on the face of it this was better business for +lic State. However, lie

added, finance was not the only question to he considered. Settlement was the aim in view, and, in the speaker’s opinion, the o.r.p. terms might with good results ho made 4 pc 1 ’ cent., which would encourage men to take up land, and probably indirectly lead to a large increase in the turnover. “Tile concession in regard to pastoral leases, namely, allowing cultivation and sowing to rank as improvements, is a good move, hut it really does not apply so much to the North Island as to the South Island,” sad Mr. Clayton. It was a point lire light up at the Colonial Conference of the Farmers’ Union, whose request the Government now complied with. Under the 21 years’ leases an owner was only compensated for buildings, etc., only a small limit being allowed. The present concession would recompense a man for sowing tussock land, providing winter feed, etc., as this added to" the value of the propert-v Mr. Clayton agreed that with regard to ballots, the landless should get the preference over those holding property. The provision that the Land Board may examine applicants had soma drawbacks, in his opinion, ft would mean that there would be

a M unnecessary amount of publicity, even if the examination were confined to the hearing of the Land Board and 'officials. A man did not want to disclose his private" affairs, and it would undoubtedly deter many from applying, and bona fide intending ap-

plicants at that. The form the examination should take was not disclosed in the newspaper report, hut under the Land for Settlements eondit'en the Board made a man disclose

his financial position. This was notquite fair, and tended to exclude the poorer man, who doubtless would manage to finance all right if left

alone. A man entered into possession with his eyes open as to the responsibilities cast upon him; it did no’, need the Board to show him that Whilst it was undesirable that tenants should take up sections and then find themselves unable to carry on it was not right to put men through a kind of public ordeal. 1 1 , regard to the proposed stipulation that the successful applicant who disposes of his land shall he ineligible to ballot within five years, Mr. G'hivfn; did not think that would meet

the. case. The way to obviate dumniyism, he suggested, was to insist upon compulsory residence for 12 months or at least C months, before a.i.V transfer was granted. The pre--sen’’. regulations were far too lax, and tended to foster trafficking in sect'ons. As soon as a man field the land for 12 months he could obtain a transfer, irrespective of whether he ha 1 resided or not. This should not be allowed. It was right to allow a man 12 months to look round end make arrangements, but at the end ot that term lro should, have to reM - f«»r n. year. This would stop applications from persons who wore totally unfitted for settlers, and who had not the remotest intention of settling. The Waimata business had

been an eye-opener as to the extent of speculative applications. In that instance competition elicited that £IOOO could he obtained for the transfer; obviously this goodwill should helon!" to the State and not to the speculator. Mention was made in the summary

it- Unit disposing of Land or kettle- j me nt* leases bv public tender. L 1; I Clayton elmmotorised this its most undesirable. The ballot system at least Have all an equal chance. 1.0 oil’e r leases by tender moant that n times of •competition a man might, <ri/ 0 more than ho could reasonably afford in order to obtain the land, and thus land himself in didioulties. In anvea.se sueli a system would l>lav directly into the hands of those with lone; purses, as against the .smaller man, who might lie the better setpler This was iust what the State si uit 111 avoid, and other provisions she ill'll be framed to meet the ease. Mr. Clayton considered the orriment’s proposed method ol payment, for estates compulsorily taUen was open to strong criticism. It « red just to take land at the Govunmont valuation, with tho small peieentago added, and thus praetiealK I preclude any legal remedy. Ihe present method of valuation by arbitration, with right of legal remedy, was favored by the 'Farmers Union. As to tho proposed percentage, a 01 5 per oent. addition would not in every ease recompense a man tor the breaking-up of his property. f< As a general principle tJio 1 armerr Union does not favor endowments,” said Mr. Clayton in reply, to a question. To make such provision fo • the future tended to induce a certain amount of thriftlessness or extravagance. A man inheriting monev was rarolv thrifty, and the same with a nation. The needs ol the country at tho present day should l>?- studied; there was no occasion lor a burst of generosity for the futu 'e. Who could pretend to say what me conditions would he * r 3o or 100 years hence? It, was against the principles of social economy to make such prevision for posterity; a country should always be prepared to tax itself for its requirements. To pay rents into a. special fund for educational and charitable purposes was unnecessary. At the present time al' the, revenue went into the Consolidated Fund, and out of that Fund educational and charitable requirements were met. "What need was there for further machinery? It only] adu to the cost of adminiifei,, • According to Mr. MoN«S-{ figures when lie first introduced tin proposal, continued Mr. Clayton, the revenue from liis proposed endowment's was estimated at only £184.2d!3. whilst the amount required was £1,039,000. Therefore the proposals ill any case, were absolutely inadequate. Under tile now endowment on the same basis the revenue would be £IBO.OOO. .At least 5 per cent must he deducted for the cost of ad ministration, leaving only £171.000 to meet obligations exceeding oiv million. “But will not the rates increase ? asked the reporter. “There is no-certainty about that,’ replied Mr. Clayton. “The price of hull has been gradually rising, bill tli > possibility, nay, the probability is that wo have almost reached the top values, and that in a lew years values raav start to go down.” Tin speaker touched on another phase ol the endowment question. Had tin British Government, when Henry George adduced his single tax theories in 1872, nationalised all the runt’ lands of Great Britain, values had so depreciated since that the loss to tin Government would have,reached ovo" 120 millions sterling. This war ariived at by comparing the selling values then and now. On a smaller scale New Zealand might have an experience of this kind under the endowment proposals. A cash turnover was ill© safest- and host. “The graduated tax proposals?” “Well,” said Mr. Clayton, “the Far mors’ Union have no objection to tin Government’s method of limiting tile acquisition of large estates. Tile Colonial Conference of the Union practically endorsed this method, which is far preferable to the former proposals. Wo can’t see that tho tax will impose any hardship, as the limit b very high.' Will it have the desired effect? It is hard to say yet; if no! the- tax. could ho further raised.” “Wo must wait until Parliameni discusses the measure for further on lighteiiiiieiit,” he concluded. “ItM not probable that the Farmers’ I n iju will further discuss the Bill ; tin concessions are a tribute to the influ dice already exerted upon the Go comment.”