THE LAND BILL. COMMERCIAL.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XCVI, Issue 14498, 9 October 1907, Page 7

THE LAND BILL.

COMMERCIAL.

CONSIDERATION IN COMMITTEE. AN IMPORTANT DEBATE. THE CRY FOR THE FREEHOLD, THE OPPOSITION AND THE RENEWABLE LEASE. ' [From Our Correspondent.] WELLINGTON, October 8. The House of Representatives commenced tiie consideration of the Land Bill in committee tills afternoon. The Hon R. M’Nab, Minister of Lands, had charge of the Bill. THE LEASE-IN-PERPETUITY. A discussion arose at once on Clause 3, which provides that the lease-in-per-petuity shall bo replaced by the sixtysix years’ renewal lease in respect of ordinary Ox-own lands. The clause commences as follows :—“ After the passing of this Act no Crown land shall be leased by way of lease-in-perpetuity.” The Hon O. H. Mills (Wairan) moved to strike out the word ”110,” thus retaining the lease-in-perpetuity. He said that the loss of the lease-in-per-petuity would prejudicially affect land settlement in the Dominion. The main object of the lease had been to prevent the aggregation of largo estates, and it had served that purpose well. The change proposed was a retrograde one, and would not be welcomed by the settlers.

Mr Massey said that the amendment raised one of the most important questions in the Laud Bill. It was a fact that the tenants were nervous in regard, to the lease-in-perpetuity. It had been said- that no Government would intex-fere with the lease, hut already attempts had been made to interfere with it. He would be prepared to vote to abolish the lease-in-perpetu-ity if something better were offered, but a sixty-six years’ renewable lease with revaluation would not bo an. Improvement. The right of purchase should be part of the renewable lease.

Mr Mander stated his belief in the principle of freehold for everyone, with limitation of area. ‘

Mr Hogg said that in his opinion no better lease than the lease-in-perpetuity had been devised. The lease had conduced greatly to the prosperity of the colony, and he protested against the proposal of the Government to abolish it. The object of the State should bo to settle the land, not to secure direct revenue from the land. The lease-in-perpetuity did not encourage the land speculator and the moneylender; but it did encourage the struggling settler, and he would support the amendment. Mr Rutherford said that the lease-in-perpetuity had served its purpose, but it was not a good lease for the State, and its time had passed. He added that ho would vote for the freehold every time he got the chance. Mr W. Fraser said that the renewable lease would not be an improvement on the lease-in-perpetuity. The State had no right to the increased value of the farmers' land. The city dwellers, who shared the cost of making roads and railways, received a direct benefit in return in the shape of increased trade and general prosperity. Tile freehold was the best tenure, but .the lease-in-perpetuity was the best form of lease. Mr T. Mackenzie said that, the tenures required by the dominion for Grown lands were those advocated by the Hon tVilliam Rollesfcon—lease with right of purchase, cash purchase, and deferred payments. Those conditions would make for successful settlement in the country.

Mr Witty eaid that the 099 years lease was a ridiculous one. No Government had the right to pledge the coun- ( try for a thousand years. The Opposition affected to fear that some Government would tamper with the existing leases, and at the same timer demanded a very radical alteration on its own account. The fact was that the lease-in-perpetuity had been a compromise, not a deliberate proposal, and it should not be perpetuated.

Un-tad Association—-Electric Telegraph—Copyright. LONDON, October 7. Consols. —Consols are quoted at £B3 2s 6d.

Mr Field said that the interests of the State had to be considered as well, as those of the tenant. From the point of view of the State the • lease-in-pesr-petuity was the most idiotic leas© that could he devised. The tenants under that lease were not clamouring for the SYDNEY WOOL SALES. freehold, but he himself believed that (Received October 9, 1.8 a.m.) it would bo better for the State to get SYDNEY, October - 8. its money back and put an end to a , . 9 y, j ridiculous position. The State was sim~ At the wool market all good sorts position of a mortgagee so were firm, and the sale was brisk at f aT 013 the leaees-in-perpetuity were last week’s rates. Greasy sold to 13Jd, concerned. , scoured SIR JOHN M’KENZIE’S ATTITUDE. _. , T ~ , ri Mr Fisher said that Sir John M’KenMcasrs Wmcbcombe, Carson and Co., offered the lease-in-perpetuity Sydney, report under date October Bdeliberately, ,iand after full oonsidera“We sold to-day over 6000 bales ox arl d for ten years no one bad queswool at auction and privately, and ob- tioned its success. The lease had not taiuecl for greasy fleece laid, scoured been given as a compromise at the 25-J-d.’ 1988 point of the bayonet. The Minister of Lands: " You are SHARE QUOTATIONS. wrong.” The following are latest quotations supplied Mr Tanner: I{ X have remained silent by M®»trs Henderson and Bums:-- on this subject for fifteen years. The cv, (w* statement made by the last speaker is Compsni*. PddTp.. tlons. wrong. I was in 1891 v n „ 4 t a <3. and 1892, and I know the where history the matter. The Bill brought down 1 by the Hon John M’Kenzie, as Minister of Lands in 1891, contained no provision for anything in the nature of a lease-in-perpetuity, nor did the same Bill when it was brought down again in 1892 after having- been rejected m another place. During the early stages of the Bill in 1892 the Opposition hardened up to such an' extent that the Minister Felt tho impossibility of, getting it through without amendment. The Government whips were sent round, to interview every member of the Liberal Party personally; and to ascertain whether a 09,9 years’ lease as a. substitute for the proposal of the Bill would he acceptable. I replied that it would not. The fact that sUch a lease was proposed, was not made public until the Minister was/speaking on the second reading. When ho announced that he was prepared to offer a 999 years’ lease I could hardly believe my eons, and X sent a- note to the Minister asking whether ho really proposed a lease for close upon one thousand years, without any modification. Mr M’Kenzie replied: ! Yes, hut it will only last until after the next election. When the party comes hack we will soon have it altered.’ I have always been eorry that I destroyed that scrap of paper.” Mr Massey said that a Fair Rent Bill had been introduced by a private member in 1894 and by the Government in 1895. That Bill of 1895, had been the first attack on the lease-in-per-petuity, and it had been succeeded by several Bills, each of which had threatened revaluation. The result had been the cry for the freehold. Mr Buddo said that the Fair Rent Bills had not been designed to increase rents, hut to meet cases of distress during tl:o period when the farming industry was passing through had times. Mr Massey said that tho. Bills had proposed to give the Government power to raise rente as well as to low r er them.-

SHIPPING. rpicE Press Association.] , WELLINGTON, October 8. The Tongariro left Plymouth or Sunday for Wellington. The Orari left St Vincent on Saturday for London.

Mr Tanner said that two yeans previously the Hon O. H. Mills had voted with a Government majority in the direction of affirming the desirability of abolishing the lease-in-perpetuity. Mr Mills replied that he had voted with the Ministry of which he had then been a member. After some further discussion til© amendment to retain the lease-in-par-petuity was rejected by 40 to 20; The division-list wne as follows: For the amendment—Messrs JLAllerij Baame, W. Fraser, Greenskde, Hardy,.

Hcrriee, Hogg, Hooston. Jennings*, Lang, Lethbridge, I'. Mackenzie, Malcolm, Mander, Massey, Mills, Okeji Reid, -Remington end Ross. Against the amendment—Messrs Ait* ken, Alison Arnold, Barber, Barclay* Bennet, Buddo, Carroll. Colvin, Dillon, Ell ( Field, Fisher, jhatman, Grayj Guinness, Henan, Hornsby, Kaihau* Kidd, Lanrenson, M’Gowan, M’Nab, Millar, Ngata, Parata, Poland, Poole,. Kutherford, Seddon,J3idey, Stall worthy, Stevens, Tanner, Thomson, Wilford, Wltcv and Wood, Sir William Steward and Sir Joseph Ward. AN OPPOSITION PROPOSAL. Mr Alison then moved to add words? making the amendment read as f ol-‘ lows ‘ ‘ After the passing of this Act no Crown land shall be leased by way of a lease-in-perpetuity but all Crown lands shall bo disposed of under the occupation with right of purchase system.'’ This amendment meant striking, out the sixty-six years? renewable leas© from the Bill. The Minister of Lands said that the* amendment simply meant the abolition : of the option as far as Crown lands were concerned. The Government proposed that the settler should decide* whether he would pay cash for the land, take it under occupation with right of purchase, or accept a renewable lease. The amendment meant that every aoret of the land must be disposed of under* the occupation with, right of purchase!, tenure.

Mr Massey said that occupation with!’ right of purchase was the most popular' form, of tenure amongst settlers.; The only way to settle the rural land was to give every tenant the right to secure, the freehold. He thoroughly with the amendment. / The Minister of Lands said that the’ amendment proposed to abolish' every* form of tenure except one for the re-j maining Grown lands. The last shred; of option was to be removed from tW land system of the colony. The land; leased in the form of small gracing runs, the various other leases, the cash, system were all to be swept away and;, replaced by the occupation with light* of purchase. Mr Massey said that the Minister was most unfair, and' consequential amendments might ho necessary, bub the intention was ehnply to throw .mb the sixty-six yeans* lease, the most absurd ever submitted to an intelligent Parliament. Mr Alison’s intention had been to provide that every man who took up Crown land should have thai option of the freehold. MF Lang said that it was simply question between the renewable lease; and the occupation with right of our-; chase system. '

Mr Stevens said that he was a free* holder, but a fair compromise had been arranged. He was not prepared to. throw away the bone of compromise for the shadow of universal freebdid. The Premier said that the country did not want extremes on either side. The Government offered the settlers a choice between the freehold for cash, occupation with right of purchase and the renewable lease. The amendment proposed to offer the settler nothing': but occupation with right of purchase. 1 That would be moat undesirable. The land reformers had made very big concessions, and the House could not) fairly take an extreme step in the other direction. Mr Massey said < that the House had been given some information. A com* promise had been arranged between the liberal freeholders and the land ua« tionalisers. The liberal freeholders had sold the leaaa-in-perpetuity endi nine million acres of Crown land to bsi set aside aa an hind nationalisers had made hd corresponding concession,' They had got nsux of what they wanted,' end .would ger -tis, rest at a later date.'- -., v That sort of

thing had been going on for years. Thef land nationalises ■ had inade a good bargain for themselves, and a bad ocoej for, the country., _ > Tho Premier said that a leaseholder was not a land nationaHser,' Great pel* itioal problems could be solved only by, compromise, and the leader of the position had been endeavouring to! create a false impression. Mr Laurenson said that'ho pin pot, think the House contained any land' nationalise!®. The man who believed ip land nationalisation, wished to tijm every acre of land in tho Hommioto into State property. The land reform*!*, simply stated that tho small remaining balance of the Crown lands should be; retained as State property, in ,ordef that State leaseholds, might be avail, able as for settler* who had not the money to. buy free* °The debate on the amendment wai carried on until closw upon 11.30 The amendment was then rejected- on p division by 46 votes to SO. The division last was ag follows t For the amendment —Messrs JUiEoas, J. Allen;, Bennett, Bollard, W. Fnoa, Greenslade, Hardy, Hemes, Jenning** Bang, Lethbridge, T. Mackenme, Major, Malcolm, Mander, Massey, Okey, Reid, Remington and Bern. Against the amendment—-Messrs Ait* ken, iwnold Barber, Barclay, Buddo; Can-oC Colvin, Dillom MT, Field, Fisher, Flatman, FowWs, A. U Fraser, Graham, Gray, Hanan, Hogan, Hogg, Hornsby, Houston, Izard, jxm~. hau, Kidd, Laurenson, Lowry, M’Gowan, M'Nah, Maopheraon, Mular* Stills, Ngata, Parata, Poland, Poole, iSeddon, Sidev, SiaUwort-hy. Tminer, Thomson, Wilford, Witty and Wood, Sir Wiilmni Steward and Sir Joeepa Ward. ’ THB RIGHT OF PURCHASE. Mr Lang then moved 'to add to thb clause the words “ with right of chase during tho term." , J; The effect of tho amendment would have been to make the option, of pui-* chase one of the terms of the years’’ (renewable lease. : ■ j Mr James Allen said that the obie-cif of the amendment was to enable a ftot-.' tier to get the option of the fre-ehoud. on a 4 per cent bains instead of having to pay S per cent under tho occupation with right of purchase tenure. _ Tho Minister of Lands said that thd amendment simply meant parting with all the Crown land. Ho to go to a vote nf the House unoi-rstoedh the proposal. ~ „ .. J. In answer to a question, the Mnustet* eaid that the renewable lease was brinfl for the in every instance. Settlers taking land under the occupation with of purchase system, and' not the option within the twenty-five allowed, would be given a lease instead of a lease-in-psrpetuity^

at present. T l '© amendment was rejected oci division by 37 votes to S 5. Clause 3, which had been discussed* for over seven hours without amended was then adopted on. a diw then by 4.1 votes to 20. ■_ .... The effect of the clause is to afaoh©w the lease-in-perpetuity In favour of tho renewable lease.• ?■ ..... Progress was reported - at- mKinisn: the day having been occupied with 0gv..... clause of the Bill, which contain!*- 7w. clauses. ll , l '. r V', THE FREEHOLD. ! The leader of. the Opposition hr*; J given notice to move an amendment to the Land ‘Bill regarding the acquisi* tkrn of the freehold. Clause 19 of the Government's Bill provides for a in-perpetuity having the right‘to pur-, chase the freehold at the present valued Mr Moissay-proposes to substitute jv) clause providing that the leasee s&ahj| ba entitled to purchase the frcpaoldf, subject to the following restriction?—s‘ (1) THat''he shall have complied wj-tS the, improvements and residential ditions; (3) than he is not disqualified by reason of owning mere than, “tho eta-, tutors area; (8) tliofc he shall pay fotfl 4ha this dtSorenc-Q hetweeaj

four per cent and five per cent on the capital value for the term during,which he has held the land on lease. Mr Massey also proposes that payment for the freehold may be made periodically in sums equal to one-tenth of the capital value, with a corresponding reduction, of rent.

Banks— Australasia . , . « 40 0 0 10S 0 0 New South Wales . . 20 0 0 46 2 6 New South Wales . * 20 0 0 45 6 0 Union of Australia . 20 0 0 62 0 C! National of N.Z. . . 2 10 0 S 9 a Financial — Christchurch Building 10 0 p 11 15 0 N Z. Rivar Plato . , 1 0 0 1 9 6 DalaretT and Co. . « •5 0 0 6 10 0 Mutual Benefit Bldg, . 10 0 0 11 5 0 Permanent Inyestment 10 0 0 10 8 c Gas Companies— Ashburton ..... 4 10 0 6 0 0 Auckland 5 0 0 14 3 0 Cbri etehuroh . . . G 0 0 10 0 c Feildir.g 1 0 0 0 18 0 Gisborne ..... X 0 0 2 13 0 Hokitika 6 0 0 4 IS 0 10 0 0 25 0 0 New Ph-mouth . . . Palmersxon Norik . . 5 0 0 7 15 0 1 10 0 7 a 0 Port Chalmers . . . 1 0 0 0 19 d Thames 1 10 0 1 IS 0 Timaru 5 0 0 9 5 0 a o 0 8 14 0 Wellington .... 10 0 0 18 15 0 6 0 0 9 7 G Insurance— Farmers* Co-op. . . 3 10 0 S 10 0 0 10 0 1 7 0 New Zealand, -Ltd. . 2 0 0 4 1 a South British . ■ • 1 0 0 6 15 0 Standard .... 0 15 0 1 1 9 Meat Prescrring— ■ Canterbury Frozen Meat 7 10 0 8 0 0 Christchurch Heat 10 O 0 10 10 0 Gear Heat 1 0 0 2 6 0 4 0 0 B 5 0 6 0 0 6 12 0 'Wanganui Meat . . 5 0 0 6 6 6 Railway and ShippingsWellington and Mansiwatu Railway Co. . 1 0 0 0 New Zealand Shipping Company . - S 0 0 0 0 0 Woollen Manufacturing— 5 0 0 5 0 0 Moagiel Woollou . . 3 10 0 2 IS 6 1 0 0 1 6 0 Wellington Woollen . 4 0 0 3 S 0 Miscellaneous — Cant. Cen. Co-op. Dairy Cant. Farmers’ Co-op. 1 15 0 1 15 0 2 10 0 3 lb 0 Canterbury Saleyards . 5 0 0 S 0 0 Now Zealand Drug Co. N.Z. Farmers’ Co-op. 2 0 0 2 11 0 2 0 0 2 10 0 Manning and Co. . . 4 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 5 0 Whitoombe and Tombs 2 10 0 4 7 G Westport Coal . . 3 10 0 7 14 6