NATIONAL ENDOWMENT

Hawera Star, Volume XLVI, 26 August 1926, Page 5

NATIONAL ENDOWMENT

RIGHT OF FREEHOLD.

GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS OPPOSITION JN TH.K HOUSE'. (by TELEGRAPH PRESS ASSOCIATION.) AY ISLINGTON, Aug. 25. The Hou. A. IJ. McLeod moved the second leading ol' the Land law* Amendment Bili in the House of -Representatives. to-day. He said it was a simple Bill, hut contained an extension of a very important principle, namely, the principle ol freehold. It had been decided by the Government -and the party that, subject to certain restrictions as to area and value, the right of freehold be granted to tenants of National Endowment lands. The area of the latter amounted to 8,1)85,000 acres, the great bulk of it being held in pretty large ■areas. Of that acreage 6,740,000 had been leased by the Grown and 90 per cent, was in the South Island. About 2,609,000 'acres were held in 189 pastoral leases, or an average of 17,000 acres per run. These figures indicated that the great bulk of the land was of third-class quality. He had gone carefully into the position of pastoral runs and had concluded that there would be very few of those holdings converted into freehold, as the land did not admit of very much more improvement. The cry lor the freehold had come mostly from the settler who was improving hiss land. The number ol settlers affected by the Bill was 1379. with an average holding of four hundred and forty-eight acres, and that was the particular section of the Crown tenants, who were holding Lands which were being greatly improved by the hard work of settlers. Their areas could not be termed large holdings. The demand for the freehold had been insistent ever since the National .Endowment scheme was launched, and the

Minister believed it would be very much better for the country as a whole as well as the individual settlers if the freehold was granted to them. .About 2,200,000 acres of National Endowment lands were not occupied. Some was in the South Island, but most of it was in the North Island, where it was set aside as State forest. The Minister next referred to the ( amortisation principle which applied to the freehokling of National Endowments lands, and he agreed that the principle was sound. The Minister dealt with the question of the settlement of gum and pumice lands, and affirmed that after careful investigation lie was satisfied those lands could not. be successfully settled without- subsidies: from the State. Mr. M. J. Savage (Auckland West) said he regretted to see that the old question of granting the freehold of National Endowment lands was again looming so large. AVith such a. quantity of land bringing in such a large revenue for education and old-age pensions they could not but feel apprehensive when there was a proposal to dispose of those lands. He would like the Minister to- say how he proposed to apply the funds derived from these .sales.

The Minister replied that they would ■be invested as provided for by the present Act. Continuing. Mr Savage expressed the opinion that it would be better for the State to keep the virgin lands, for if it was a good investment- for the individual it should be equally good lor the community. Under the proposal of the Government lie could', sec no alternative but that education and old-age pensions schemes must stand to lose. Sir John Luke (Wellington North) said he would support the Bill, although he at one time opposed it. He was now satisfied that the freehold was a better tenure than the leasehold, and that- the finances of the State would benefit from investment- in some other way of the money derived from the sale; of National Endowment lands. Sir Joseph Ward (Invercargill) contended that the question of freehold and leasehold was not involved in this Bill, and when the National Endowment was set aside it wias not done on the basis of leasehold and freehold. These lands were set aside for specific purposes, and .it was a question of preserving them for that purpose. The men who had done well oil the laud were the men who had leasehold land and who had not burdened themselves with the responsibility ot acquiring the freehold. . ' He did not believe the settlers an National Endowment lands wanted the freehold. The revenue from those lands had gone up from £'40,000 to £150,09 per annum, and this system, which had been going on with great success, was all going to be changed. He predicted t-liat- ic would not be long before those wlio-acquired the freehold would lose their lands and in al l

probability their money too. The Hon. U. J. Hawken (Egnionr) contended that the question of freehold and leasehold wiais involved in the Bill. Many of the endowments were not returning 21 pe reent. on the unimproved value, and all that the Government had in view was to find a better investment for the money. As a matter of fact, if money was invested in six. per c-ent. debentures the return would be nearly 50 per cent, better than the return from the endowment lands. At present much of the endowment lands was not being cared for .as it should, and its capital value was being reduced, lint if the tenant had the right to acquire tiie freehold it would be to his interest to preserve its capital value. Mr. Hawken favoured investing the money received for the .sale of Hie endowment lands in forestry. If put into trees the capital would double itself in thirty year*. Mr. H. E. Holland, Leader of the Opposition, .sa id the Bill proposed to change the National Endowment from rural to town and city lands, into which the speculative and gambling spirit entered much more than in lb' case of rural lands. It was claimed that the proceeds from the sales, of rural lands would he invested In ill cities. He would like to know hew much of this revenue had been so invested. Mr. Holland, continuing, sa.id even so, what guarantee was there that +V Government, which had been attackin'’ the National Endowment ever since it came into office, would not set out to destroy the city endowments as soon as they had destroyed the .rural endowments? At present there was little or no freehold, but there was a huge mortgagehold in New Zealand, and this was the best- freehold the Government could do for the people or the land. The Government now proposed to sell these leaseholds, and in a few years’ time they even’d have to pay a. bigger price to buy back those, very holdings to make, provision for closer settlement. This policy of parting with the National Endowments endangered the oldage )»insion system, which, with nl| its faults, was worth preserving. "Rural lauds were a better investment than city lands, because it was on the rural lands that we should spread our popu-

la tic n. He protested against the passage of such a Bill. The Hon. Downia Stewart (Dunedin West) said the death knell of the leasehold system was sounded just- as -soon, as there were sufficient State tenants to become a political power. They demanded the freehold, and that- demand could not be resisted. That fact had been proved both here and In Australia. The speaker denied that the old-age pensions would be prejudiced by this change. In times of tfoub’e the freeholder was a man to whom tlie State would look, but the leaseholder was the man who would lock to the State, and that just about- expressed the merits of the two systems-. Mr G. W. Forbes (Humniii) said the freeho.'d erv had a great deal to do with the success of the present Government rt the polls, and this Bill was in part a fulfilment' of their election p 'edges. Despite what had been said to the contrary, the man who held the leasehold was in an extremely favourable position with regftrd to farming his land, and that was realised when Cheviot was cut up. The leasehold tenure proved much more attractive. In fact, Jill over the country leasehold! proved a most valuable stepping stone to tbo men with limited means. After some further discussion, the second reading was earned on the voices.