THE LAND LAWS

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1747, 30 August 1905, Page 59

THE LAND LAWS

It is made abundantly clear by the comprehensive notice of motion of which the Premier last week gave notice that the whole question of land tenures and administration has been thrown into the melting-pot, and that Parliament has placed upon it the responsibility of deciding what changes, if any, shall be made in existing methods of dealing with the national estate The House is called upon to debate the entire subject in Committee of the Whole, so that the Government may draft a hill in accord with the views of members. There will doubtless be the usual sneering criticism, from the usual quarters, that the Government is fishing for a policy, not having the courage of ability to formulate one of its own. There is no ground whatever for such a taunt. The Government has for the last twelve years had a definite land policy, which has been carried out with faithfulness, ability, and conspicuous success. There has, however, arisen of late years a demand on the part of the public for certain modifications of that policy; and good reasons for such modification having been advanced, Ministers resolved to take the proper constitutional means of ascertaining the extent to which Crown tenants and others were in favour of change. The first step was the setting up of a Royal Commission of inquiry, with a very wide order of reference, and the results of that Commission’s extended peregrinations and full inquiries are embodied in the voluminous report placed on the table of the House some weeks ago. In that document the views of the public most directly concerned in the matter are set forth. The next step— a logical corob

lftry of the first —is to ascertain the opinions of the people’s representatives; and this. it is proposed to do by means of a free discussion of the various points' raised by the report of the Commission.

There is no indication in the motion of any change ot front on tiie part of the Premier. Presumably, he has still his “back to the 'wad” in support of the leasehold system, whicn has done so much to increase land settlement, and has been perhaps the mam factor in producing the long period of prosperity which this country has enjoyed. Recognising, however, that it is his duty to give effect to the will of the people, when once that is definitely ascertained, he is proceeding with all tlie circumspection which the decision of such important matters demands. The tentative proposals set forth in the motion may, we think, be fairly viewed as embodying the changes which the Cabinet as a whole think may be made m the land laws, so as to meet the wishes of settlers and intending settlens, without encouraging who'esale alienation of the national estate or offering facilities for the aggregation of large areas in the hands of a few owners or lessees. These proposals show a masterful grasp of the subject and a sane moderation of view, as distinguished from the extreme opinions held by advocates of one or other system of tenure. In the matter of freehold option they completely take the wind from the sails of the Opposition, while on the other hand they go more than halfway towards meeting those who contend for periodical re* valuation of leased lands as an act of justice to the State. A long and interesting debate' is certain to be the outcome of the Premier’s action.

The outstanding features of the suggested changes may be briefly outlined* First of kll is the bold proposal to abolish the lease-in-perpetuity. That form of tenure stands condemned as inequitable to the State, and we believe that, barring a few members who are still under the glamour of the enthusiasm evoked for it by its author, the late Sir John McKenzie,no one will regret its disappearance. Then comes tne recognition of the principle of revaluation. It is proposed ' that leases of rural lands shall henceforth not exceed a maximum period of ninety years, with right of renewal for not more than fifty years, on revaluation. A ninety years’ lease should he good for at lease two lives, and no one should feel that he is badly treated, if he and his sons or daughters are made Bure of the fruits of their industry in the way proposed. —the State postponing receipt of its share in the benefit until next century. Allied with revaluation is the provision, that tenants on relinquishing tbei" leases at the expiry of the term shall receive full compensation for improvements. Next it is proposed that the State tenant shall have the option o': acquiring the freehold of his land ao present market value, or at the capital value upon which he originally selected, upon payment of one per cent. on same, plus compound interest on one per cent, from date of selection ; or otherwise he may exercise the right of converting his tenure to one of occupation with right of purchase. There will be many different opinions as te the terms upon which lessees should b# allowed to acquire the freehold; bat we believe the majority of member* will favour the sale of the land at it* market value at the date when the proposal to acquire is made by the tenant. This principle seems quite as. just as that of revaluation on expiry of leases. Important suggestions are made for' the limitation of the size of rural holdings, and for preventing the sinister operations of syndicates who might attempt to set up a “corner” in urban, or suburban lands. No person corporation, or company would, if these proposals are adopted, be allowed in future to acquire more than 5000 acres of first-class land, 10,000 acres of sec-ond-class land, or £50,000 worth (unimproved value) of urban or suburban lands. In the case of rural estates, the limitation is right and reasonable; but it is not easy to find solid grounds for forbidding individuals to own as much town land as they wish. If a capitalist desires to invest £IOO,OOO in urban and suburban land in New Zealand, scattered, perhaps over a dozen different localities, why should he not be allowed to do so? A limit ought certainly to he fixed to the extent of such land that may be held by one person or company in any one town, or as safeguard against the imposition of high prices. It seems to us that a less drastic method than that suggested would give protection against the operations of syndicates. The intention is admirable, but it could be better achieved, without any restriction of enterprise, by an application of graduated taxation to urban and suburban lands. No fault should be found with the proposed restrictions on State tenants who wish to convert their leaseholds into freeholds, viz., that they shall not be allowed to sell the land in such a way that aggregation might ensue, and that they must comply with the residential conditions laid down under existing leases. Two proposals that will be hailed with satisfaction, especially in the Auckland district, are (1) the restoration of th© homevster.d system of selection in the case of pooi- lands, and (2) the classifying of Maori lands as Crown land*, th*

leasing of same, with, revaluation, the application to surplus lands oi. nod ".i. by natives of the Land, for Settlements 'Act. The adoption of the second or these proposals would greatly facilitate the settlement of native lands, without in any way jeopardising the interests of the owners. On the question of the constitution of Land Boards, the safe line is taken of retaining the nominated system, subject to provisoes that the members chosen shall be men with local knowledge representing different ridings of the district, and that at least ' one of the members shall be a Crown tenant. The proposals dealing with land ballots, relaxation of cropping conditions, etc., need not give rise to much diversity of opinion. The debate to be inaugurated next week should prove the most important of the present session. It will probably be so protracted as to put out of the question ail hope of land legislation by the present Parliament ; but a great deal will be gained if it should result in the drafting of a measure which should be made a leading issue at the general election, so that the people may give their mandate to the new Parliament for the amendment of the land laws of the colony.