THE LEASEHOLD AGAIN.

Northern Advocate, 20 October 1920, Page 2

THE LEASEHOLD AGAIN.

The little discussion on the Land Bill that took place in the House of yesterday indicated that the few leasehold members who still- remain in the House are prepared to light every question of tenure to the last ditch. The Government's proposals in connection with the disposal of endowment lands have aroused the hostility of the die-hards and given them an excuse for attempting to hold up the Land Bill, though their tactics are unjustifiable. and their arguments unreasonable. Our correspondent's report affords interesting evidence on this point/ Mr G. W. Forbes, who is nominally a freeholder and voted with the Government on the Te Aroha Bill, seems to have been siding with the opponents of the new endowments policy, and to have s'wiitched from that point to a question regarding the leases of small grazing runs. Why he should have raked over this ancient history on such an occasion we cannot surmise, for his - argument certainly was futile so far as it concerned the proposals for the extension of the freehold. Mr Forbes made much of the fact that the. holders of small grazing runs had been refused a, renewal of their leases on the original terms, which fixed the rental on the basis of 21 per cent, on capital value. . The State obviously broke a contract with these lessees, but it was surely justified in terminating an arrangement that had been made in error. That, however, is not the important point. Mr Forbes contrived, whether intentionally or not, to show that the leasehold may be a very bad bargain for the State, as it undoubtedly is in the ease of lease-in-perpetuity lands or renewable leases which give the tenant the right to a fresh lease "at the original price. ■ In the ease that he mentioned the State was able when the leases fell in to lo+ the land againat an increased rental of 1£ per ceiit. If the land was worth.4 per cent, in--stead of 21 per cent, it certainly was right that the State should obtain the increase.- The argument of the leaseholders is that wihen the State' parts with the fee simple it loses the future increments of valuer As a matter of fact the money that the State obtains for land is put to such uses that it has the same value, and often a higher value, than the land itself would have. It is obviously wiser to sell land and invest the proceeds reproductively than it is to hold, land and let it out on inadequate rentals, as. Mr Eorbes apparently wished the Government- to do in the case of the small grazing There are, of course, other weighty reasons for the predominance of the freehold over the leasehold sentiment in this country— the freeholder is the more contented I

and useful citizen, makes his land produce more, carries a share of the' burden of taxation, and so on—buit the beat reason is that the State in practice does not obtain a fair return from its property. Laud that is tied up for long periods in such a fashion that it cannot be reommerative to the owner is not worth holding. The leasehold tenure has its use as a means of encouraging settlement, but only as n stepping-stone to the freehold.