MR W. FRASER, M.P., AT RIVERSDALE.

Lake Wakatip Mail, Issue 2659, 12 May 1908, Page 5

MR W. FRASER, M.P., AT RIVERSDALE.

Mr W. Fraser, M.P. for Wakatipu, is a very attentive representative. Unlike many members of Parliament, Mr Fraser can always find time, and it is his invariable custom to visit and address his constituents between sessions. This year was no exception to the rule, and on Thursday night at Riversdale he gave his first of a series of addresses in district centres at the local Drill Hall.

Mr Joseph Smaill was voted to tha chair and introduced the member, who, he said, would give an account of his stewardship. LAST SESSION'S WORK. Mr Fraser, who was applaudad on rising, said that last- year he bad spokan in that hall on the Land Bill of 1906. There had then been nothing else to speak about: it was the overshadowing question at the time. Altogether 114 Acts had been passed, and these represented only a proportion of the bills introduced. He referred to -the Parliamentary and Executive Titles Bill by which they were no longer colonists, but residents of a Dominion having instead of a Colonial Treasurer a Minuter 1 of Finance, and in place of a Colonial Secretary a Minister of Internal Affairs. Personally he did not think much of the innovation. He had been a "colonist" for nearly 50 years, and had not been anxious to have his title changed,—(Hear, hear.) However, there it was. THE LAND LAWS.

Last year he had criticised cloealy the bjll of 1906, and arrived at the conclusion that it was crude and ill-digested and unscientific in its methods. It was endeavoring to abolish certain anomalies and inequalities, but was creating others in their Dlace. The 'New Zealand Times,' which would not readily publish anything against the Government, had recorded the opinion of Dr Findlay, the Attorney-General, that the original t bill would have "created a separate set of difficulties," and that it had been proved "quite impossible to make it really workable." That surely was a confirmation of what he had said when he spoke to them last year.

THIS YEAR'S BILL was a very different matter. Under its provisions there was to be no more 999 years' leases, but instead the 66 yean' lease tor Crown lands and the S3 years' for lands tor settlement, with revaluation of rentals at the end of every term. That was a new principle. It had been alleged that the occupation with the right of purchase had not been interfered with. That was true to a certain extent, but a farce all the same. The clauses had not been repealed, but as they did not apply to lands under the Lands for Settlement Act, and as the great bulk of the Crown Lands were set aside as endowments the occupation with the right to purchase was virtually a dead letter. That there was no direct interference with it was perfectly true, but the indirect interference was so effective that it might as well 1)0 wiped off the Statute Book. Regarding the new leases, at the end of the terms the improvements were valued by a Court set up for the purpose, and thus represented to his mind an honest attempt at fair arbitration. But while this was so it *ras nevertheless certain that by no process could a fair estimate of what a man had spent on his holding be arrived at, and this no matter how careful and how fair the valuation might be. Under the new Act, regarding Crown lands, the lessee could pay up to 90 per cent, of the unimproved value, and after 33 per cent had been paid, was absolved from all conditions but payment of rent and residence, and could treat the land as if he owned it. He did not anticipate that many farmers would lend the Government money at 4 per cent. Under the bill of 1906 they could not have got these advances back—it was a loan in perpetuity,—but under the Act of last session provision was made that they could secure repayment of the advances almost at any time, with the exception of the 33 per cent., which was only repayable at the end of the lease. But if they imagined that on paying 90 per cent, of the capital value of the land thy were getting within striking distance of

SECURLNG THE FREEHOLD, they were entirely mistaken. The other 10 per cent, would take a lot of getting over. No doubt some would pay the 83 per cent, to get rid of the harassing conditions, but he questioned if many would pay more. The generality of farmers could do better with their money than lend it to the Government at 4 per cent. The old leases-in-perpe-tuity—for 999 years—"might" be *xchanged for the new leases described in the bill. But could they conceive of any holder giving up his 999 years' lease for the new lease with valuation? He might, if paying too much, as in the case of Pomahaka and one or two other estates; and the provision that mot the hard cases of these settlers he appoved of, but the settler would not take advantage of the provision in ordinary cases. There was also provision that the holder of a lease in perpetuity might purchase the freehold at tne present value. How very generous! As nobody was forced to do so ho thought the clause, like the last one referred to, would be practically inoperative.

OTHER FEATURES. He approved of the proposal to grant residents in town permission to obtain country land on certain conditions which did not include residence, but said the operation of the provisions would have to be carefully watched. The altered provisions regarding the constitution of Land Boards met with his approval. The Crown tenants were granted one voice in five and that was better than nothing and at least ensured that they would have their wants voiced. Regarding the provisions for limitation of area, he admitted that they would prevent the accumulation of estates and they had his support. He however warmly combated the statements made that there had been no interference with the freehold tenure. If was perfectly true that there had been no interference with land owned privately, but the one principle of the now land laws was that NO MORE CROWN FREEHOLD should be sold. Certainly provision was made for tho sale of the freehold in respect to sundry small areas required for such purposes as a dairy factory or church glebe or parsonage, but the new Act had been carefully drafted to prevent any further sales of the freehold to individuals. Personally he was a firm believer in the freehold and held that it would do more than any other systom to send the country ahead. Moreover, the leaseholds of the Government would not eradicate the inborn desire for ownership of land, and every man at present being settled on tho leasehold tenure would later on help to agitate for the permission to buy the freehold. He was a fairly old man, but would not be surprised to see that bappen and be carried to a successful consummation in his day. The majority of the farmers of the Dominion wanted the freehold and no other tenure wpuld satisfy them, and they would in ' "the long run insist on having the tenure which they understood and believed in. After referring to the preference given at the ballot to married men, widows and widowers, etc., the speaker went on to refer to the

LAND FOR SETTLEMENT AMENDMENT ACT.

[ There was little change, except in respect to the method of acquiring properties, from that previously in vogue. The Court Lad been done away with, and the bill as it came down contained a provision to take the valuation roll, plus 10 per cent, up to a certain point and 5 per cent, over that amount, as the basis for purchase. It was, however, pointed out that the man owning the property would in this event have no voice in the matter. It was practically a case of the Government taking the property at its own valuation, and was therefore not equitable. This was recognised on representations being made, and a new scheme was instituted. Improvements were to be valued against the land. Then, if the man whose property was in question thought the amount was not the fair "«.lue, he could apply to have it raised, and the valuation was put on a subsidiary roll. To the amount on the valuation roll was added 10 per cent, up to £50,000 end 5 per cent, on whatever was over £50,000, and to the total 2 per cent, as an over-riding addition. It might be imagined that if the owner could raise his valuation in this way he could prevent the Government buying his property. But this was not so, as the

LAND AND INCOME ASSESSMENT ACT

had to be reckoned with. This made the payments very severe, and the owner was not likely to put a higher C;ice on his land than its true value, ecause he would be mulcted very severely indeed if he did. Under the Act referred to, not only had the ordinary land tax to be paid, but on large estates a graduated tax was imposed in addition, so that a man owning a property valued at £BO,OOO paid £BOO per year in addition to the 8s 4d per £IOO ordinary tax; while if the property was worth £IOO,OOO he had to pay £1250, or if worth £200,000 £SOOO a year in addition. On the last-named amount this a penalty of 2£ per cent, (or with the ordinary tax nearly 3 per ce-nt.), and if only 5 or 6 per cent, was made off the property they would recognise that it would never, do to raise the values unduly—it could not possibly pay the owner to do so. The object of tins Act was that owners should be compelled to cut up their estates voluntarily, and it was having the effect c imed at. Some people thought the impost insufficient, and instead of 3 per cent, would have liked to see 5 per c-Hit. or 6 per cent.; but that, he thought they would recognise, would be slieer robbery, and the majority of the p3ople of the Dominion would not countenance any such thing. The present tax would be sufficient. All wished 11 see as large a number as possible sett'ed on the land. Such a state of affairs would mean that the country and i's industries would prosper. THE ENDOWMENT ACT.

Tiie bill of 1906 proposed to lock up 11,000,000 acres. That of this year recaced the acreage to 9,000,000. On 1 oking at the schedule and map he realised this fact —that as far asOtago v as concerned hardly a single acre was ! ft out. The result was that no man

i i the South Island could get any land < i the o.r.p. system; he had to go to the North Island to do so. There might

1 ? a few mountain tops 4000 or 5000 f et high left available under the o.r.p. s-stem. He was indignant when lie saw the schedule and recognised that there could bo no question whatever t'lat the Endowment Act was the cop-ing-stone to the Government's landnationalisation proposals that ran t irough the three bills he had mentoned. He regarded the alleged reasm for the setting aside of the endowments —to provide for education, old--Bpensions, etc. —as a ridiculous f.irce. He had given them his views on tie old bill, and they applied with equal force to the new one. After they deducted the cost of administration, t >ok off the thirds and fourths and provided for the roading neceesary to settle these lands, what would be left? Next to nothing. One thing the Act did: it effectively prevented an acre of f eehold being parted with. Needless to say this measure did not meet with his support.

SCHOOL COMMISSIONERS' LAND

He had hoped to have got a clause inserted in the bill dealing with a matter of local concern —the School Commissioners' lands. He asked the Ministor to accept and have a clause drafted providing that the administration of School Commissioners' lands should be put into the hands of the Waste Lands Loard (leaving the Commissioners as trustees to deal with the proceeds), and the Minister apparently viewed the proposal favorably and promised to see what could be done; but Cabinet did not desire to have any extraneous mattar introduced, and declined to give its consent. The Minister said the matter might be dealt with in a separate measure this session, and, while he was sorry to see it postponed, it was no use fighting the question, though they might be sure that he would remind the Minister of his promise and leave

nothing undone to secure such provision during the coming session. THE TARIFF. The Premier had lately been making a number of speeches and hardly one but had reference to the fact that by the new Tariff Act reductions totalling about £405,000 had been made in Customs duties. It might be excusable to say this once, but it was not the right thing to go on repeating it and forgetting to toll of the other side of the

picture whereby increases amounting to £107,000 had been imposed. The Premier had himself admitted in 'Hansard' that the concessions amounted to a little below £300.000. However, he ; was iiot disputing that substantial concessions had been made. History, however, had an awkward habit of repeating itself. In 1895, the last occasion on which a similar revision of the tariff had been made, they had been told that there was no desire to increase the people's burdens—the revision was merely undertaken to remove anomalies and make th« Act more workable. The new duties would not bring in more than £IO,OOO to £12,000 a. year additional. From calculations he (Mr Fraser) made at the time he camo to the conclusion that tho new duties meant an additional £60,000 or £<o,000. They actually amounted to £160,000, and when taxed with this <; thc wonderful prosperity of tho country" was advanced in excuse. If these duties which had been estimated to produce £107,000 in revenue mounted up in like proportion, what would become of the £400.000 concessions? He would say nothing if the increase under this head was, sav, £50.000,-. but if it came to £200,000, £300.000 or £400,000 they would hear further about it. In the light of previous occurrences had to take these assurances of great .concessions with a grain of salt. THE GAMBLING ACT.

Thero was another measure to which he would like very briefly to refer. The first part was a transcript of the Victorian Act, and made strict provision for the restriction of betting on streets and public place 3; by the latter part racing clubs were compelled to license bookmakers. They were told that if the latter part were not allowed the other part could , not pass. This was a nice admission to make! He spoke strongly on the subject at the time, and considered the scene one of the most repulsive in the history of the New Zealand Parliament.

The two strangers' galleries were filled with bookmakers, who sat the whole night through, watching while this measure was made law. It was not an edifying sight, and he would not think that it was proper that Parliament should have passed a bill compelling racing clubs to license bookmakers, it was claimed that they were being driven off the streets, and surely they should be permitted to ply their calling on the racecourses. He did -not hold with it. It was a case of "Pity the sorrows of the _poor bookmakers," but he did not pity them one bit. SUPERANNUATION SCHEMES.

For some years past they had l-eon passing superannuation measures —first in regard to the police, then the railway, subsequently the teachers, and now there was the one relating to the whole of the public service. To the first scheme brofcght down he and others took strong exception—not- in regard to their object, for he believed in the principle of providing for the )ld age of faithful servants—but in that they were not financial. The provision made was not sufficient, according to the actuaries, to ensure stabilityand as he had said, he and others (including Messrs Fowlds and McNab) protested; they objected to the Government doing the popular thing at the smallest price. It was now recognised that a mistake had been made, and the later schemes were more in conformity with the requirements of the actuaries. The others would, he believed, be revise! and put on a sound basis. They had

no right to impose a burden on posterity and take all manner of credit themselves. FINANCE. The Premier had told them that the financial operations for the past twelve months had been satisfactory, and he was glad to know it. The Premier claimed a surplus of £767,000, which was really gratifying. The figures permitting of an analysis were not yet available, and so criticism would be out

of place. They had to accept the statement as given, and he (Mr Fraser) did not think it was unduly colored or made to aunear better than it really was; in fact, the figures might have been made to appear even better. Last year the Treasurer off £150,000 Treasury bills, and this year he had followed a similar course, which could not be too highly commended. For many years some £700,000 of Treasury bills had been lying over year after year, virtually constituting a permanent debt. Of this amount £300,000 had been paid off, which was the proper thing to do. Treasury bills were a means by which money could be rpised in anticipation of revenue coming in. Revenue did not come flowing in all the time, but expenditure had to be undertaken regularly; hence the Treasury bills, which should be taken up when the revenue did come in, but this had not hitherto been the case, and the new departure was gratifying.

A HYPER-SENSITIVE PREMIER. The Premier was hyper-sensitive in regard to criticism touching on finance. This should not be the case. The country expected fair and reasonable criticism, and such criticism was to the advantage of everyone, including the Treasurer himself. An overflowing treasury was an indication of prosperity in the "past— not of prosperity at the moment or prosperity during the current year. Look at the trouble in America during October and November. There the revenue was buoyant, there was a big surplus, and yet the panic came like a bolt out of the blue, with the result that 3,000,000 or 4.000,000 men were out of work and 600,000 had left for Europe. Producers had been forced to pour their goods into the markets ana take what they could get, the steel and woollen mi'ls had had to close down, and in consequence our wool and flax had suffered. The stocks of Manila had to be sacrificed for the one necessity —gold,—and Manila fell from £4O to £2O and our flax fell in sympathy. This decline in our staple products had been predicted but pooh-poohed; and what would be the consequence P For one thing there would be £3,000,000 less to spend in New Zealand than last year. He held that Sir J. G. Ward had missed a splendid opportunity in November of sounding a note of warning to be careful in the conduct of business. Such a note would have come well from him; but instead he said the trouble would not affect us more than the fringe of a wave. He (Mr Fraser) did not doubt the soundness of the country, but he held that the present was not the time to increase our liabilities. We should rather take in sail. Money was scarce and the banks were calling in overdrafts, and such occurrences did not tend to make things easier. Some of the papers had directed attention to the financial prospect, and had been told that they were crying "Stinking fish!" and w«re alarmists. He reiterated his conviction in the general soundness, but considered there was good reason to be careful. America would not recover with a leap and a bound, and a safe-and-sqund policy was whnt we wanted.

After an interesting reference to the Socialistic movement, for which we cannot find room in the present report, Mr Fraser, whose remarks had frequently met with the approval of his audience, repumed his seat amidst applause. COMPLIMENTARY. Questions were invited, but none were forthcoming.

Mr John Gee said that no doubt the present lack of questions would be made good when Mr Fraser next visited them —-at election time. He moved a very hearty vote of thanks to Mr Fraser for his address, coupled with continued confidence in him ss member for Wakatipu. Mr Michael Shea seconded the motion, which was carried by acclamation : and Mr Fraser having replied, a vote of thanks to the chairman concluded the proceedings,