THE LAND BILL.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLIII, Issue 13357, 11 December 1906, Page 6

THE LAND BILL.

VIEWS OF MR. F. MANDER, ■.[ . . M.H.R. ;. . ' FREEHOLD ■V. LEASEHOLD. [BY TELEGRAPH. OWN CORRESPONDENT.] . Whaxgabei, Monday. In the course of an interview on the Land Bill, Mr. F. Mander, M.H.R,, said its object was to nationalise the balance of the Crown lands, and prevent future applicants taking up a single acre of such lands under freehold tenure. The endowment proposed was a mere bagatelle. Let the Government give settlers the freehold and security, and they would be willing in future, as in the past, to contribute to the hospital, charitable aid, and old age pensions requirements. The Government had no mandate, as was proved by the evidence before the Land Commission, to introduce the Bill, and the late Premier himself had promised the North something quite different, the homestead system. He thought the 66 years' lease, renewable after revaluation, would result in the land going back in cultivation towards the. expiry of the lease license. There, would always be a fear of such revaluation, and even of the land being taken away altogether from its holders. South Island support of the Bill was partly due to the fact that the bulk of the Crown lands was in the North. The revenue, which would go into a national fund, would benefit the whole colony. Besides, the South had already many endowments, set aside in the old provincial days. The Crown lands in the South he described as following the course of the Southern Alps, rough and inaccessible country, useless practically for agricultural and pastoral purposes. It should be remembered that the subdivision of big estates affected by the Bill would not create another additional acre of freehold. In fact, there would actually be less, as many more roads would be required. Such estates, or the parts of them to be sold, were beyond the reach of the poor man, many of them being worth from £10 to £40 an acre, and if sold at all would probably be disposed of in areas to the value of £i 5,000. All were agreed as to the limitation of area, and he believed no man should hold more laud than lie could profitably cultivate. There were several ways of preventing aggregation without destroying the security of present titles. There was the method of compelling a landlord to divide, his land among his sons by arranging for such division to take place at his demise. There was the graduated land tax, which could be so applied as to make it unprofitable for a landowner to retain land above a maximum value fixed by Parliament. . One great flaw in the present Land Bill was that no attempt'was made or proposed to open for settlement the vast areas of native lands locked up in the North, and'now useless to the Maoris and Europeans alike. Let the Government make this land available for settlement, and by the time it was taken up the big estate question would probably have settled itself in a natural way. No increasing freehold facilities would accrue to the North under the Bill. Practically there would not be a single acre more freehold land obtainable. The Auckland province had emphatically nothing to gain by the subdivision of big estates that came under the scope of the Bill. The lands held by the Assets Realisation Board were being gradually put on the market now, and would continue to be •increasingly available, without any of the compulsion proposed by the Land Bill. The crucial issue between the Opposition arid the Government was the straight-out one, freehold v. leasehold. The Opposition wanted the land settled. The Crown lands now were second and third class. Practically all the first-class land had gone, and .only freehold tenure would induce sensible men to take up inferior land. New Zealand had prospered under the freehold, and freeholders largely had made it prosperous. We believe," Mr. Mander concluded, " that every man should have the opportunity of going on the land, under the easiest possible conditions, with the right to make his section his- own as soon as he can fulfil the necessary conditions., . The Opposition have never altered their opinion in regard to • this matter, and are willing to stand or fall by the verdict of the country on this question."

MR. McNAB'S LAND SPECULATIONS. [BY telegraph.—own CORRESPONDENT.] Dunedin, Monday. In the course of a speech at Balclutha on the Land Bill, the Hon. It. McNab, after explaining that the portion of the measure dealing with, the limit of £15,000 on the unimproved value, said Mr. Massey, Leader of the Opposition, was opposed to this particular part of the Bill; in fact, he did not suppose there was one clause in the Bill that Mr. Massey did support. The Minister then quoted Mr. Massey'» statement in his speech at Papakura, to the effect that he (Mr. McNab) was member of a syndicate that.was making enormous profits from the sale of green flax growing in Makeru swamp, and also his challenge to bring an action for slander, in reply Mr. McNab said Makeru swamp was formerly owned by the Manawatu Railway Company, and four or five years ago a syndicate bought the swamp from the railway company, paying, so he was told, £2 10s an acre for it. The syndicate, lie believed, sold out to a company in which they '(the syndicate) held a large number of shares. He wa? not in the Manawatu Railway . Company; lie was not in the syndicate, and he was not in the company. The syndicate transferred the swamp to a company, which held the property for throe, or three and a-half years, during which time it .sold 4000 acres of the swamp. It raised by way of mortgage a large sum on the balance, and it expended, ,he was told, £10,000, including profits' from its sales, and money obtained by way of mortgage in draining the remaining part of the swamp. After the company had sold about 4000 acres to some half-dozen llaxmillers, the land was subject to frequent flooding from Manawatu River, and therefore could not be settled. . This happened after the company had expended £20,000 in drainage work. He (Mr. McNab) went into the open market, and bought some shares in the company. Those shareholders who bought from the syndicate, they had been told, had made huge fortunes, and one portion of that fortune was the unfortunate money he had had to pay for his shares. . (Laughter.) Since that time, as the property was too large for their financial position, they 'had sold two portions to various flaxmiller*. They now had only 4500 acres left, which they found to be within their means financially*, and that portion they were now developing and spending a large sum of money on. That was his position in relation to the syndicate, which, according to Mr. Massey, had scooped £40,000. It was this unfortunate purchase of shares that had enabled the syndicate to make its division of profits; his one regret was that he did not get into that- original syndicate. (Laughter and applause.)-

POMAHAKA RENTS. [BY TELEGRAPH. —OWN CORRESPONDENT.] Dttxedtn, Monday. The Minister for Lands (the Hon. >!. McNab' was waited upon at Clinton, on Saturday, by a deputation of Poinahaka settlers, in regard to the Government granting some measure of relief in the matter of rent. The deputation staled that the ex-Minister for Lands had instructed the Land Board not to collect rents from settlers until (he Government had dealt with the question. The Minister said he could not do .vbat the law forbade him doing, and he could not instruct the Board to cease collecting rents. The Land Bill, to be reintroduced next session, would, if it passed, give tenants at Pomahaka a full measure of relief. The conversion to 66 years' renewable lease, at current valuation, Would do this by getting rid of the original heavy capitalisation of sections, and when the conversion took place, he would grant them the right to make it date as from the time of taking up their leases.

Any rents they had paid, which would be in "excess of that required under the new rental, could be placed to their credit. The Minister expressed the opinion that the concession would be satisfactory to the tenants. ' NOT SUITABLE FOR AUCKLAND. LESSON OF THE MANUKAU ELECTION. . The Land Bill was discussed at a meeting of the Parnell branch of the Liberal and Labour Federation last night. The president (Mr. J. R. Lundon) said the Bill was not suitable for Auckland. It had been said that the Manukau election had been fought between freehold and leasehold, and the result 'was "a thundering good licking" for the leasehold. There was going to be trouble on the land question. He trusted that in any"* future by-elections the Land Bill in its present stage would not be thrust upon them (the Liberals). In conclusion, Mr. Lundon said he had no faith in the Land Bill, and that it would not do for Auckland.

Mr. Cliff, vice-president, said that if the Government had ever made a mistake, it was when they backed down from the 999 years' lease. He considered that- Mr. McNab's proposal for a 66 years' lease was a " farce." The Manukau election had taught "the Government a good lesson. The Opposition were determined to fight this question. Further discussion was adjourned until a future meeting. , -, '• ■■ . .