THE LANDS QUESTION

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1749, 13 September 1905, Page 19

THE LANDS QUESTION

ROYAL COMMISSION’S REPORT. THE PREMIER’S RESOLUTIONS. RESUMPTION OF THE DEBATE. The debate on the lands question was resumed in the House of Representatives on the sth inst. Mr Houston considered, that the Land Commission might have finished its work in half the time it did. Many of the northern districts were left untouched altogether, but might have been - covered had the Commission not wasted so much time in asking witnesses useless questions, apart entirely from the order of reference. The Commission must have travelled - over the greater portion of. his district with its eyes shut and ears shut as well. The settlers in his district were entirely in favour of the homestead system, yet the Commission ' reported against the system. The ballot for Crown land was wrong in. principle, for it was conducted, under the gambling system. Anything was better' than the ballot. It had driven many worthy settlers out of the country. Mr Lawry said he could not agree with the arguments of those who contended that Crown tenants, who had entered into a contract with the State, should be granted the right to acquire the freehold. The State had no right to sanction the breaking of this contract. The leader of the Opposition was inconsistent, and was travelling towards chaos. Sir John McKenzie would have done what Mr Seddon was doing today. - Mr Massey: You know better than that. ' Mr Lawry: The hon gentleman does not know anything about it. If he was not absolutely ignorant, he would have enough intelligence to know what he does not know. Sir John McKenzie had been opposed to the lease-in-per-petuity tenure, but he recognised that compromises must be made in politics. The 999 years’ lease was a greater concession than the Premier suggested in the proposals at present before the House. Mr Rutherford said that after reading the report of the Royal Commission he had doubts as to the setting ua of the Commission. The Premier should make a straight-out pronouncement in favour of the freehold. The freehold had to come, so why should the Premier be stranded on the shoals of the leasehold? He (Mr Rutherford) was a freeholder straight out. He would sell every acre of land with the exception of certain areas for national parks,etc. Sir Wnj, Steward contended that nine-tenths of the Crown tenants yvore satisfied with their existing leases. The remaining tenth would be satisfied, but for fears of revaluation and proposals advanced by extremists. It was not desirable that the freehold should be granted to all Crown tenants. Half the agitation for the freehold would never" have arisen if Land Boards had had more discretionary powers in the past. Mr Major said the subject was one which demanded the deepest consideration, but it was treated by the Premier with levity. No doubt Mr Seddon had a difficult task —mainly in reconciling the conflicting interests of his own party. And at the same time the leader of the Opposition, when he had an opportunity of a statesmanlike and dignified attack upon the Government, made a blackguard rush The Speaker: Order. The hon member must withdraw that remark. Mr Major said he withdrew his remark; but he had really intended it in the way of a compliment. When the leader of the Opposition had his opportunity, he rushed hither and thither, thrusting his sword in anywhere, but inflicting no real injury upon his adversary. The report of the Land Comwould in the future prove to be of considerable value. The report had cost the colony £15,000. An hon member: By your vote. Mr Major: Yes. But the report was a valuable one, and the Commissioners had acquired for the benefit of the country much information. Mr Heke said the European settlers had not taken the advantage offered to them by the throwing open of native lands on a leasehold tenure. This was not the fault of the Native Lands Council ; but the fault was with Parliament, which should have enabled the Native Lands Councils to open up these lands in a manner suitable for selection by those who wished to go upon the land. If the necessary money for roading and bridging had been supplied there would have been no difficulty in the settlement of these lands. But he held that the balance of native lands —which was small —should not be sold either to individual® or to the Crown. The estimated area of land was 67,000,000 acres, and the balance of native lands was only 4,000,000 acres. (No, no.) He maintained that he was right. He hold that these lands should not be utilised. Qn the contrary, his view was that they should be employed to the best possible purpose. Mr Alison asked, if the land policy of the present Government had “made the country,” as stated by the Government’s supporters, why was not the Government prepared to stand by its boasted benefioent policy, instead of desiring to make a change ? Why was the Minister of Lands Dreoared to alter the

land laws in any way that a majority of the House might determine? The leader of the Opposition had submitted a policy which the Government was about to steal and clothe itself in before long. There must be a change of policy and it was apparent that the Government was not" able to formulate a sound policy, leaving that to the intelligent members of the Opposition. The Government’s native land policy, too must be altered, so that the millions of acre® of land how lying idle could be opened up. The recommendations of the Land Commission showed that the Commissioners were unable to grapple with the big question they were set up to determine. Mr Duthie said no larger question had ever been brought before the House, and instead of approaching it with dignity and in a. manner becoming Parliament, Government members had approached it in a spirit of hilarity that was degrading. The Premier was unworthy of the confidence of the House, in so far as it was the duty of the leader of the House to construct a policy, . and Jie had failed to do it on the land question. The action the Premier was now taking, whilst it might be very astute, was an endeavour _ to put the constitutional responsibility upon his opponents and to suck their brains, bearing out that the Premier himself was unable to do his constitutional duty. He had no doubt that if the Opposition devised a policy for the Premier lie would be prepared to accept it and blame the Opposition if it failed. The perpetual lease, the trump card of the Government, had not succeeded. and even those on the Government Benches would not say that it should be perpetuated. A greater admission of thorough" failure of the Government’s land policy could not be named than that scheme of settlement. Land Boards had been appointed with political bias, and they had been harsh in their actions again and again. The only way to get rid of all the evils was by a system of freehold, so that, a settler could husband his land and make the most of it, though he admitted they required to have a restricted area of freehold that a man might acquire.

The Hon C. H. Mills (addressing a bare quorum at 11.30) maintained that it was questionable whether a long lease, such as the lease-in-perpetuity, was not detrimental to the State, and both sides of the House appeared to be agreed that it would be better to leave the lease-in-perpetuity out of the next bill. Until the leader of the Opposition and those with him had offered the freehold bribe—a policy of spoliation —to the Crown tenants, there was very little dissatisfaction with the present Government’s land laws. Sir William Russell said one was at a loss to understand what the attitude of Ministers was on the question. The notice of motion given by . the Premier was extremely diffuse, and it was difficult to understand the Premier’s mind. The land question had been used as a stalking horse for years, and used with the endeavour to euchre political opponents. Their object should not be to gain a party triumph, one over the other, but to pass such laws as would be satisfactory to those persons who had to carry this country upon their backs —the country settlers. Could any hon member, whatever his views might be, tell him of any country in the world where they had a rural population which was prosperous and satisfied upon the leasehold tenure? There was none—take the whole world round. The desire for the freehold was the one inducement that made people go upon the land. On the motion of Mr Field, the debate was adjourned.

The debate in the House of Representatives on the resolutions brought down by Mr Seddon on the lands question was resumed last Wednesday. Sir Joseph Ward said every person who had watched affairs in Great Britain knew that the land laws thei’e were largely responsible for the depletion of agriculture. This was mainly due to the system of entail that had existed, for so many years. The object of younger countries should be, and was, to avoid the position that existed in older countries, and which had driven out so many families. The various tenures in New Zealand at the present time were the cash system, occupation with right of purchase, lease-in-per-petuity, village settlements, special settlements, improved farm settlements, occupation of leases in mining districts, small grazing-runs, pastoral runs, miscellaneous leases the conditions of which were fixed by Land Boards, and the land for settlements system, which had been very popular, particularly in acquiring estates for close settlement. The land laws of New Zealand were amongst the most liberal in the world. The land for settlements system that had been in operation for many years had been successful to a remarkable degree. The results spoke for themselves. There was undeniably a great feeling of unrest in the country, and he laid the blame for the discontent at the door of the Opposition party. In view of the divergent opinions held upon this question, it should, he thought, be approached in a spirit of compromise. The optional system, he believed, was one they would still require to have in operation in this country. No contract should be broken without a voluntary agreement, and it should not be done under any coercive proposal. That was where the differ-

ence arose between members on the Opposition and on the Government side of the House, because if they deliberately broke a contract, unless it was done voluntarily on both sides, they were laying down a dangerous principle thatcould be applied not only to land but to every other system of contract in the country. The 999 years’ lease, to his mind, was very much better than the freehold, but in view of the change in public opinion, he believed that the country was desirous that provision should be made for a limited freeholdl Some system of that kind required to be brought into operation, and if public opinion forced that upon the Parliament, then they should discuss the matter calmly and dispassionately, so that they might evolve the system most applicable to the requirements of -the colony. Upon a question such as this, there ought to be no temper or feeling, nor abuse of the Government. That would not settle the question, - and he ventured to say that if the Government had submitted a Land Bill, ■without first bringing these resolutions before the House, there would not have been the slightest chance of carrying it through the House this session. Mr W. Fraser denied that any political party in the House had a desire to see such a condition of affairs existing in New Zealand as existed in the Old Country. What Avas the use of having the optional system on the statute book if the Crown tenants could not take advantage of it? The Opposition had a right to expect that the GoA r ernment would come down with a clear-cut issue on the land question. That had not teen done.. He believed there ivould be no Land Bill brought down this session. His creed AA r as a belief in possession with the right of purchase; to • the holders under the lease-in-perpetuity system the freehold at the capital A r alue upon which the rent AA r as based, with 1 per cent, added ; a belief in the prevention of the aggregation of large estates; and a belief in the need for a change in dealing with the pastoral leases. The Hon Mr Duncan: Hear, hear. Mr Flatman could not see his way to grant the freehold to leaseholders at the original value. One.of the principal reasons for the grumbling amongst Crown tenants had been the unjust accusation by Land Boards against holders of land of bad farming or over-crop-ping. There should be more power given to the Boards to allow. crops to be groAvn in accordance with the quality of the land. He believed the lease-in-perpetuity system was the best for the holders under that system, and they were more satisfied than holders under the system of occupation with right of purchase. . The occupation with the right of purchase was not the success that members of the Opposition claimed. Mr Massey: It’s the most successful in operation. Mr Flatman: Why should the returns shoAv otherwise, then?Mr Buchanan: You don’t understand them. Mr Flatman: Don’t you say I don’t understand my business. If you had had your AA r ay, there would have been no CroAvn tenants. You voted against the Land for Settlements Bill, and to-day you champion the men you attempted to crush. I can read you like a book^ Mr Buchanan: All right, don’t get angry. Mr Flatman went on to advocate a better understanding between the Crown and the lessees of pastoral runs. Most of the estates purchased for closer settlement would pay themselves off in a few years. Mr Vile: Is that what you purchased estates for? Mr Flatman: I’ll answer you when I’ve got more time. He was satisfied that not more tjaan one in fifty of the tenants under the land for settlements system wished for the freehold if they could pay off a certain portion of their savings against a rainy day. The unrest amongst the Crown tenants was caused by Trades Councils, single-tax-ers, and members of the Opposition. Mr Millar opened by referring to the Farmers’ Union as political highwaymen. He hoped the Premier A\ r ould not alter his views on the freehold and leasehold. If Mr Massey had made his amendment in the direction of preventing the freehold being acquired, he (Mr Millar) would have walked into the lobby behind him. If it was right to give the freehold to the tenants at the original value, it was right for the Crown to take land from the individual owner at the price paid by that owner, but did anyone ever hear a member of the Opposition support that? There were 21,000 tenants holding 16,000,000 acres of land, and they had got it by luck under the ballot system from other competitors. And hoav the leader of the Opposition, and those with him. said those tenants should have the freehold given them and the whole of the rest of the population of the colony should be denied the right of acquiring it if they so desired. The Old Country had been held up as a shocking example of the evil of the freehold, but there was no need to go so far from home. In NeAv Zealand there were plenty of examples of the evil of freehold. No vote of his would ever be given for the freehold, and if the lease-in-perpetuity contract was to be broken, the land should be piit up for tender—the highest tenderer to get the leasehold. The country would be defrauded to the extent of £fc@o,ooo or £700,000 if the

proposals of the Opposition were adopted. He would give every advantage to the man who wanted to go into the country and settle, but he strongly opposed the 999 years’ lease. He had no objection to the man who went away back on the bush land being given 1999 years’ lease, but under the land for settlements system a fifty years’ lease was sufficient. He denied that the Trades Councils in conference had ever advocated touching the leases that had already been granted. Their voices had been raised against the 999 years’ lease* If a bill came down this session, he hoped members who were of the same mind a!s himself would take fine care to prevent the freehold being- granted to the Crown tenants until the people of the colony had had an opportunity to discuss the whole question. Mr Hawkins held they need look for no other reason for this agitation amongst Crown tenants for the freehold than the speech that had just been delivered by the member for Dunedin. He ventured to say that during the present election contest that speech would create more votes for the men who claimed to be the champions of the producers of this colony than anything * that had been said during the debate. He read from “Hansard” to show that the member for Geraldine. (Mr Flatman) sought to currv favour with the Crown tenants bv asldng the House to pass a Fair Rent Bill. The Land Commission’s report recommended the abolition of the Government system of giving grants for roading purposes in country districts. That was the opinion of ninetenths of the members of the House, who recognised that it was nothing more nor less than a system of bribes to members and the constituents. The Hon Mr MoGowan argued that the people of the towns and cities were as much producers as those of the country. To say that the farmer alone was the producer in a community, and that nobody else was doing any good, was to misstate the facts. In reply to state-' ments made regarding the Government and a Fair Rent Bill, he pointed out that relief had been given to tenants who were paying over heavily. Last year rebates were given to the extent of £16,606. He was satisfied that no law passed now or within a number of years regarding land tenure would be permanent, because the minds of the people were not educated yet to a knowledge of what was the best system of tenure for the colony. He protested against the Crown tenant receiving the unearned increment. The tenants had no right or title to the added -Value of their leaseholds by reason of increased population. His desire on the land

Eestion was to bring the landless man the l&nd, but not to give him the eh old. Mr Lang said the Government was time on the land question, in order to discover which was the strongest party. Mr Massey: They dun’no where they are. Mr Lang said the Premier had refused to make Mr Massey’s amendment a want-of-confidence motion because he could not drag his supporters into the lobby, as he did last year, despite their convictions and pledges in favour of the freehold. His own opinion was that the lease-in-perpetuity settlers should Jbe granted the freehold at the original value. He did not* wish to see leasehold abolished —not even the lease-in-perpetuity. One reason for the desire for the freehold was the irritating in- • terferenoe by Land Boards, rangers, and others in carrying out the law, and there was a feeling of insecurity with reference to revaluation and fair rent-' Mr Buddo said a Government which had given the land for settlements policy, advances to settlers, and rebated i to Crown tenants, could not 'be considered antagonistic to the tenants ? who, on the whole, were in a satisfactory position. He had always held that the Orown tenant ought to have the right to pay off the capital value of his land in order that he might own a portion of it, and also that he might invest his savings. His objection to the right of title, however, was that it would lead to the aggregation of large estates. Mr Head, speaking at midnight (to six Oppositionists and ten Government members), said the report of the Land .Commission was valueless. It might have been written before the evidence was taken. The report had come down, and still the House was without a bill. It was the most unprecedented position In the history of Parliament, for it showed the Government had no confidence in itself. Mr Witty thought if the freehold .was granted there should be no revaluation of existing leases. The granting of the freehold would mean a rush to the money-lender. Mr Vile, at 1 a.m., placed on record evidence he had given before the Land Commission at Palmerston North. J On the motion of Mr Sidey z the debate was adjourned. The Premier intimated, before the i dozen members who had remained dispersed, that he hoped to close the debate next evening.