THE MINISTER OF LANDS.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XCVI, Issue 14427, 18 July 1907, Page 7

THE MINISTER OF LANDS.

A STATEMENT IN REGARD TO THE PROPOSALS. Speaking to a reporter, the Minister of Lands empnasised the point that had been explained by Sir Joseph Ward. The concession of the freehold, he said, did not apply to tenants under the Land for Settlements Act, but only to the holders of leases-in-perpetuity over ordinary Crown land. The tenants on estates such as Highfield and Kinloch would not have the right of purchase, but they might convert to the renewable lease, and under its provisions pay to the Government 90 per cent of the capital value, and thus avoid the restrictions imposed by the Land Boards. “ It has been suggested that the allocation of endowment land constitutes a bribe for tho support of the north,” the reporter suggested to the Minister. “ Nothing of the sort,” replied Mr M’Nab. “ Let me explain how we arrived at the proportions to be set aside as endowments in the two islands. An officer of the Lands Department was instructed to ascertain the total area of Crown land existing in the various provinces, and to take from each a definite proportion of tho area intended for endowments. Having arrived at the proportion by the rule of three, and influenced by no other consideration, he handed the result to us, and we took the nearest round numbers as the proposed areas.” “ How much of the endowment land is settled?” asked the reporter. “To the best of my recollection,” replied the Minister, “ there is more unoccupied land in Auckland than land settled, but it is the other way about in the south. The proportion of 1,215,000 acres in the North Island against 7,785,000 acres of endowment, bears out

what I said at Onehunga in reply to the northern critics, and repeated all along that it was not proposed to bake the laud of the north bo educate the sons of the south.” “Are you able to indicate the nature of'the land intended to be set aside for endowment?” asked the reporter.

“I think I can tell you,” replied Mr M’Nab, “ that the actual parcels of land to he set aside will be specified in the schedule to the Bill. We have no objection at all to the parcels being fixed by the House. It will do away with the suggestion that, having secured authority to set aside a certain area for endowment, we picked the eyes out of tue Crown lands for that purpose.” THE LIMITATION PROPOSALS. DRASTIC MODIFICATION OF ORIGINAL SCiT~.' V; The drastic modifications that have been made in the Government’s original proposals for the limitation of private estates in land are the subject of surprised comment from all parts of the House. Last year, as has been impressed upon moat people in the colony, the Government proposed that no person who owned land of the unimproved value of £15,000 should be allowed to purchase more, and that any person, who owned land valued at more than £50,000 should be required to 'dispose of the excess within ten years. The first of these proposals, which would have had the effect of keeping the big landowner out of the land market, has been dropped altogether, and for the second there baa been substituted a graduated tax commencing at an unimproved value of £40,000, and rising steadily till a value of £200,000 is reached. “In effect, the Government has abandoned its limitation proposals, and although I am a freeholder and represent a freehold district, 1 am. sorry,” said one member to-day. “ The most popular proposal put forward by the Government was to keep the big landowners out of the land market. The great mass of the farmers and the city people approved of that, and heaven only knows why it has been dropped. The Ministers admit it is gone, however. The new graduated tax starts at £40,000, but as homesteads, minerals, standing timber and growing flax have been excluded, the new limitation may be said to commence where the old limitation became prohibitive. Moreover, at no stage, not even when the enormous value or £200,000 is reached, does the proposed tax become prohibitive. A man holding £200,000 worth of land is to pay £6OOO tax. Supposing his profits from the land are about 6 per cent on the value, a very. moderate estimate in manv cases, the man’s income is £12.000. His land tax will leave him £7OOO, or about 3i per cent on his valuation. A man who has the land hunger will hold every acre under those conditions.” THE FREEHOLD CONCESSION. EXPLANATION BY THE MINISTER OF LANDS. Some members of the House and aj> parently one or two newspapers have misunderstood the terms on which the holders of leases-in-perpetuity of ordinary Crown lands are to secure- the freehold. The Premier said that “ this option will be given at a price to be fixed by arbitration as on the date dni which they give notice of intention to purchase.” This has been interpreted in some quarters to mean that the arbitration would determine the interests of the State in the section, and that the lessee would secure the freehold by paying this sum. The Minister informed a representative of the “ Lyttelton Times” this evening that this interpretation was a wrong one. The tenant would be required to pay to the State the present value of the holding less the value of his improvements. The tenants, in short, were to get the freehold at what is commonly called present valuation.