THE LAND PROPOSALS.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XCVI, Issue 14428, 19 July 1907, Page 7

THE LAND PROPOSALS.

THE CONCESSION OF THE FREEHOLD. EXPLANATION Btf THE MINISTEB OF LANDS. THE ENDOWMENT LANDS. [FkOM OUB CoKRESrOHDENT,] WELLINGTON, July 18. Tlio Government Las been widely criticised in connection with its pro* posal, indicated in the Financial State* merit, to offer the freehold of ordinary Crown land held under lease-in-per-petuity at the present value, to be fixed by arbitration. In an interview with a representative of the “ Lyttelton Times ” this evening, the Minister ol Lands made a statement on the subject. “ I don’t think that people have Si clear idea of the difference between the proposal of this year and of last year ■on the point,” he said. “In the Laud , Bill of last year there was power to convert every Crown land lease-in-per* potuity holding into a freehold, but ths sal© was to be by public auction. TL* only changes that nave been introduced this year are that the sale by public auction is replaced by sale at the present valuation, which is to bs determined by arbitration, and that the uncertainty as to who shall get the section is removed by giving the land to the tenant in possession. We have not extended by one single acre the area over which the option of the freehold is to be given, nor have we given, the land on better financial terms, because tho price given at an auction should represent the present value. We havo simply given a preference to the present holders. As a matter of fact, the proposal to sell tno land by auction did not ensure that the present value would be given. There was power given to the Government to put the iand up on terms, and if local feeling had been against turning out the present tenant, the land might have been sold for ■ mere song. There was nothing to pic* vent that in the Bill of last year.” “ The real departure from last ypar*a position,” continued the Minister, lies in the fact that an area of from seven to eight million acres of land, proposed to be put aside as endowments last year, has been taken out of the endowment proposals. Now, look at the matter from the freehold point of view. We are putting that land into the market under the ordinary land laws. Only such portions of the area as the Land Boards of the districts concerned consider to be suitable for close settlement will be offered under the optional system. Of that, seven or eight million acres of land, probably not more than half a million'will be offered with the option, at any rate in our time. The rest of the area will be leased as grazing runs, under similar to those prevaling at present. We are not touching the land laws as they affect the grazing runs leases, under which large areas are leased in Canterbury and Otago. These are points to be considered when estimating how far the Government has surrendered.” NEWSPAPER COMMENT. [iJBOM OUR COKKBSrONDENT.] WELLINGTON, July 18. the ‘ New Zealand Timee ” ref art editorially to the Government’s land policy as follows“ When Mr M’Nab, in a speech at Stratford, issued an advance statement of the Gov eminent’a re-arranged land policy, ho cooled to something like a normal temperature the overheated atmosphere in which, the land controversy had until that time been conducted. The Budget’s amplification of details will complete the cooling process, and the country will no longer be agitated by a storm of contention over what was made to seem a violently Radical programme, and the House will be asked to discuss a plain and straightforward policy with nothing Radical or alarming about it. . . . In the original programme of the Government it was proposed that the State should not relinquish its ownership of the lease-in-perpetuity holdings, 'but should offer special inducements to the tenants of those holdings to convert their tenure into renewable leases, with a tenure of 66 ye are. During the recess it has been made clear that the lessees-in-per* petuity are so conscious of their strong position that they can afford to reject the utmost that the State can offer in the way of a ‘ leasehold proposal.’ Bound to observe the ‘ sacredness of contract,’ therefore, but equally bound to do something to rid the State of an intolerably bad bargain, the Government has found it advisable to surrender the freehold in this case. Short of tearing up the existing contracts, the Government could do nothing else. To ask for ‘ the present value ’ as tho price of the freehold, would be merely to decide the lessees to hold fast to their leases. To give_ the freehold at the ‘ original value’ is dearly impossible. There was, therefore, nothing to do but to pay the penalty of the folly of long ago and grant the freehold at a value fixed by arbitration.” The “ Post ” last evening, under the heading “ A Bad Backdown,” refers to tho sturdy promises made by the members of the Government last session, and adds:—“Utter disappointment will, we are sure, be the general feeling among those who hoped most from last year’s Land Bill, as they read_the feeble substitutes which are provided for several of its cardinal _ and most valuable provisions. To an increase of the graduated land tax wo are'by no moans averse, and it is likely to command a more general approval than the original proposals for the direct limitation of tho value or area of private estates, both as involving a smaller departure from established practice and as corresponding with the election declarations of the late Premier and others. But the difficulty with tho graduated taxation is one not of principle but of degree, and the change can" only escape being a backdown by making the increase severe enough to bo as drastic in its operation as tho original provisions- • - • We certainly see small ground for hoping that the result which the Minister of Lands anticipated from the £50,000 limitation will be realised in this way, viz., that ‘two and a quarter million pounds’ worth of unimproved value will be put on the market during the next ton years.’ . . ■ We may ha thankful, therefore, that something remains of last year’s programme, but there is certainly little left to excite the enthusiasm! of .the.land reformer. DUNEDIN CRITICISM. [FHOM (JUR COBBISrONDVNT.] DUNEDIN, July 17. After expressing approval of th* Budget as a whole and of. the proposals for the remission of taxation on the necessaries of life, the “ Star take:; off the gloves in respect to what it characterises as “ The Land Bill surrender.” Seeing that this journal Has hitherto been one of the staunchest supporters of the Government proposals I make no apology for telegraphing in practically its entirely its caustic com-" mont:—“ Land is not specially connected with the financial side of the, Budget (except as regards the increasein the graduated tax) but the Financial: Statement has com© to he used as a medium for the general exposition of Ministerial policy, and land reform proposals are undoubtedly the most prominent feature of the policy of Sir Joseph Ward’s Government. Sir Joseph had a. surprise lor the House and country, a surprise which many faithful members of the Liberal Party will b© disposed, to characterise as a betrayal. The secret had been well kept, and Mr Laurenson, when speaking at Gisborne two or three days ago, had no inkling of tk' : ntended surrender. We belWT#

that the Government have made a big mistake, and that they will.only hare themselves to blame if the loyalty of many of their supporters is strained almost to breaking point. They have no moral right to deb their friends down In this sudden and complete fashion. We are frankly disconcerted, and almost feel that our congratulations are due to Mr Massey and the Farmers’ Union. We have no wish to underrate the. importance and value of those portions of their policy which Ministers h#vo not seen fit to throw overboard. Th&y have not abandoned tho graduated tax proposals, and only a portion of the endowment scheme is to be sacrificed to the prejudices of tho reactionary party, and this w well. Earnest reformers should be thankful for email mercies in this hour of disillusionment. Mr M’Nab’s attempt to justify the novel course which he ana his colleagues have adopted will be awaited with keen interest, but m the meantime we are at a loss to imagine by what means ho hopes to make out a reasonable or even a plausible case in defence of the radical change of policy announced by his leader _ lasb_ night. Durinw the last few mouths, with admirable vigour and ho has ehown cause why tho holders of leasee-in-perpetuity should not bo offered tne option of the freehold, and has repeatedly poured the vials of his scorn upon the proposal to make fresh purchases of land with the money obtained from land sales. Yet now the holders of 999 years leases are to be offered the option of acquiring the freehold after all, while the proceeds of sales will be paid into the Land for Settlements account, and be applied in acquiring new estates for settlement 1 It is a sorry and stultifying capitulation, quite unnecessary fas we believe) and essentially undesirable, and we are, afraid that it will produce a demoralising and disintegrating effect upon tho fortunes of tho Government and the Liberal Party. ■ A FARMERS’ UNION~ITEW. MR D. JONES "INTERVIEWED. Mr D. Jones, president of the North Canterbury executive of the New Zealand Farmers’ Union, was interviewed yesterday in regard to tho now land proposals. “After the odium oast on the Fanners’ Union during the last few months,” said Mr Jones, and alter being told that we were out ox touch with and did not represent the farming community, it is refreshing to find that the land proposals now brought down, by the Government appear to have been largely influenced by the attitude of representatives of tho Union.” Mr Jones went on to say that during the last few mouths the Union’s members had spoken almost throughout New Zealand in advocacy of the optional tenure and the right or lease-in-perpetuity settlers to be granted the option of the freehold. ibey had urged also that all land fit for agricultural purposes should be set apart from endowment reservations and let on the optional tenure. From the information to hand, the present land proposals to have largely concedod to th© Union what it had been advocating in connection with tho endowment proposals. While some members of tho Union had advocated that the Crown should part with all its land, the Canterbury representatives had contended that the pastoral country should remain in tho hands of tho Crown. Now that tho Crown tenants were to be granted tho right of tho freehold, he could not understand why the Government should differentiate between them and Land-for-Settle-ments tenants. Tho Union would. con- ■ tinue to urge that the option should be given to both classes. Xhe lands ■ were alienated from the Crown for 999 ‘years, and the end of that period was almost too remote to think of. The leases were continually changing hands, and the Government was always left with the dearest tenants on its hands; It was universally recognised that the tenure was bad for the State,' and all parties advocated a change. It must therefore be desirable that some compromise ‘ should he made with the Land-for-.‘Bettlementa tenants, so that the State might be released from what was undoubtedly a bad bargain. Tho aban- : domnent of the limitation proposals of last session, which, the Government had declared it would carry through ,was an admission that the Union was correct in. its contention that limitation clauses would have a very injurious effect on the colony’s finances. Farmers had realised the fact, and would bo pleased to hear only of the abandonment of the proposals. The graduated tax which had been substituted appeared to him to bo a more scientific • method of bringing tho larger estates into the market; but in fairness to tho holders of large estates the tax should not be brought into immediate effect. The owners should he given a reasonable opportunity to cut up the estates for closer settlement, if they so desired, without use being made of the tax to punish them for being at present in possession. Mr 31’Nab had contended that the aggregation of estates had been going on; but he boid a contrary view. Tho aggregation of value had been going on owing to increased valuation. The Union had always advocated a more vigorous Native Lands _ and after many weary years of waiting the present Government’s proposals came ns a great step in advance of previous legislation. The throwing open of the surplus, Native lands for closer settlement would greatly promote the development of land settlement in the North Island, and the method of dealing with them by public auction should give_ all classes an opportunity of acquiring blocks. He presumed that the limitations now holding in connection with ♦he land for settlements policy would apply likewise to the native lands. Tho land proposals of last session tended to foster a feeling of hostility between town and country, which would have been injurious to both. The Government appeared to have recognised the fact, and mad© it clear in the Financial Statement .that neither could flourish alone, and that the well-being of the one must react for good on the other. He trusted that Homo of the city members who appeared to have absolutely no sympathy with the country would realise the fact, and. in future would bo a littlo more temperate In their criticism.