N.S.W. LAND PROBLEMS.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume I, Issue 267, 31 October 1911, Page 6

N.S.W. LAND PROBLEMS.

MR. BEEBY’S POLICY. CONFISCATION. ! CRITICISM- BY MR. WADE. s Sydney. Oct. 24. Th • leader of the Opposition (Mr. Wade) on Saturday commented as follows on Mr. Eeeby’s speech at Gunnedah on the Government's land policy:- - "I have been waiting for him to fill in the gaps before 1 ventured to comment upon it," he remarked. ■Yesterday ho made a long statement protesting that it did not mean confiscation, and that he had no enmity against the landowner. An examination of the statement shows beyond all doubt that the inevitable conclusion is confiscation.

j ' His starting point is that closer •settlement should commence by extending the present area of popula- ■ tion or within reach of settlement. I and as these localities are dealt with ; then the Government may reach out • further into the interior of the State. ! He complains that there are large ; areas round many towns, and either adjacent to or within reach of the ; railways which should be broken up for smaller settlement. So far Mr. ’ Eeeby is on sound ground, and in {agreement with the policy of the i Liberal party, and it was to deal | with those areas of privately-owned land that the Liberals launched | their policy of closer settlement. To I tarry this out several factors are esj sential. In the first place there must be some element of compulsion, and, j further, the questions of suitability j and accessibility are material. These ■ last two factors also govern the question of price. In the Liberal Closer settlement Acts power was given to the Government to resume privately-owned land at the market value with some allowance by way of compulsory taking.' and in that way a large area of country has been acquired for small holders, but the price was fixed on sworn evidence in a court of justice, and by a judicial tribunal, and the owner has always received the market price for his land. Mr. Beeby objects to this method. He approves of the compulsory element, but quarrels at the

price. ’ ’ The following extracts from his statement yesterday show* that, although he may not be hostile to the landowner, he is hostile to the present machinery which gives the landowner the market price for his land. He says this : — THE STATEMENTS. •• •There is, I believe, an unhealthy land boom in connection with country property, .and prices are being forced up at such a rate that it is impossible for any Government to make any serious impressiion on the demands for land by purchasing estates. The expenditure of two ami a half millions to provide 1400 blocks shows how small an impression can be made on the question of purchase. Clearly, then, the purchase svstem at present prices is not going to do much towards promoting settlement. . . • When the Closer Settlement Act first started, millions of acres could have been obtained from these large estates at £3 per acre. For the same land to-day we must pay £.; per acre. The land is no more productive than it was then. The extra £2 that has gong on to the price is not the creation of the land holders.’ . . •’Having reviewed the position he concludes by making the following menacing announcement :-—‘l am satisfied that further legislative pressure will be necessary before voluntary subdivision on a satisfactory basis occurs.’

“If this does not mean confiscation T should like to know what does. Mr. Beeby seems to think that he can onlj’ be accused of confiscation if he takes the land for nothing, but everybody else regards it as confiscation if vou take from an owner anything without paying the full value for it. The Minister is desirous, and properly so, of breaking up the larger estates which are available for closer settlement. but objects to the present machinery because, as he says, it is impossible for the State to work on these lines. The only alternative is putting on the Parliamentary screw. The land owner will be compelled to dispose of his land at prices less than he can now command in the open market. Such is the irony of fate. For many years the caucus party have preached progressive land tax as the means of breaking up privately owned estates. This weapon has now been in operation for more than a year, yet Air. Beeby finds that to bring about the result which he desires some pressure of a more drastic character is essential. Have we not now got an admission of the charge the Liberals have made that land nationalisation is a weapon of the Labour party to force an owner to part with his property at less than its real value ! Referring again to Mr. Beeby's Gunnedah speech, the position is set out in unqualified tfrms. He states’Where a group of bona-fide settlers pay a reasonable deposit as a guarantee of good faith, and offer to occupy an unsold estate for bona-fide settlement, the owner should l>e compelled to sell at a fair price, to be fixed by the Governi merit.’

’’For cool check and disregard of civil rights it is hard to equal this. In the first place, the mere fact of a group of men saying that they want a pert ion of an owner's land thereby e- :n;>els him to sell. In the next pl ice. it is to be a fair price fixed by the Government. What does this m -tn. taken in conjunction with the c> mb mnation of the closer settlement -\''’em yesterday This fair piice i< not to be fix* >1 by a judicial tribunal < a swi-rn evidence : it is not to be the market price, but something le“s--apparently what the Governim nt thinks fair. Such a bare faced i::r< a>l < n the rights of private owners should lie taken to heart by all I tudhcldcrs. large or small.''