THE LAND QUESTION.

New Zealand Times, Volume LXXVII, Issue 5372, 3 September 1904, Page 7

THE LAND QUESTION.

LEASEHOLD v. FREEHOLD. XO-COXFIDENCH -MOTIOX. (n tho Hoire of Be(ji-ohomtji(.iv'c-s yesiorfliiy afternoon (no delta to on tho hind question was resumed, ;Mr Jtime's Allen said tlds dohato liail been exceedingly intei'esting from many points of view; interesting first id'all beta nso there were certain members ol tlm House holding definite opinions upon aho hind question, and who wore not afraid to express (heir opinion. Ho, v'or one, could not help saying that h‘ admired an expression of opinion Irom whoever it, canto, whether ho agreed with it or not. Therefore,. ho had lieen \ulcased to hear flio vk*ws m .Mr 1' mvlds, .Mr Lanrcns.on, and .Mr Bed lord, who jvitldu their innermost, hearts must, have an unutterable contempt lor I lie action of Ministers in sheltering them. elves behind a. Royal Commission, in order Unit a policy might ho lonnd lor the Government, on the land question.

Sir Joseph Ward: It was done in England. .Mr Allen quoted from a speech hy Sir Ktafl'ord Xorthcotn against any Clovernmont. sheltering itself behind a Bo.yal Commission so that it might find a policy, flu asked Ministers to tell f h'o Homo in what manner tho Commission was to ho constituted. Was it to ho a Commission of oiki leaseholder, one freeholder. and one single-1 axerH It .so, ivlmt kind of a report would it ho? Mr Fowlds: There wilt ho three reports. Mr Allen: Exactly. and that sots forth what the objection is to the setting up af this Commission. II" did not know what the ccnntry would think ol the position that had arisen—that Ministers ivera unable to deal with the greatest question over brought before Parliament. -Ministers, however, wore afraid in face the question; they wore so loud id cfiioo and tho emoluments ol office Unit they had sacrificed their constitutional rights. Such an attitude was degrading to Parliament, and no one knew it, /letter than those members who had apcnly spoken their minds on tho question. Ha denied that tho Opposition desired to'abolish the leasehold; not one of them wished to do so. They were as keen for it as tho other aide, but they wanted to giro (lie leaseholders the right, after fidfilling certain Conditions, to acquire tho freehold. His j)oint was that if the settlers were to Imvo tho unearned increment taken from them, surely there was just as much argument that tho manufacturer and business .man should surrender to the people tho gocdwill of his business. The State taxed tho landholder on the ralno of his land whether anything could be made ant. of it or not, yet it merely asked tho business-man to pay mo much on Ids income. It was not a question of single .tax; not a question of land refornt; it was a question as to whether tho . Parliament was fib and capable to deal with ' tho question ; or whether mom hors had to sink tlioir own capacities, and tho capacities and capabilities of tho Government, v.dth all tho lingo machinery it had at its heck and call to deal with tho question—[.and Commissioners, officers all over tho country, Land Boards, tho Cioivn Lands Committee of tho House, and tho Minister of Lands himrelt— to shelter themsolve; behind tv Royal Commission. Those who voted for tho Premier's motion voted for tho impotoncy of Parliament, and to admit that they did not know anything about tho hind question. Ho knew of no more degrading scene in tho history of the Now Zealand Parliament than this motion, which showed Unit Ministers did not know their own minds on tho question. What they should have done was to have faced tho question or bo licked.

1 fiyTor said (buf far cool insolence commend him to the Opposition. The .leaseholder who had made hi.s contract with the State extending over 999 years aas to bo given the right to come to that Assembly and demand the absolute destruction of tho very basis of the contract.. Why did' this debate languish? It was because the leaders of neither party had touched the land question, which they were dodging from B- party' stand-point. .He intended to vote against the amendment and also against tho motion, which - was .simply a party subterfuge. The Premier had lost his cunning; he had only been a political time-server, and never did have any strong political convictions. What was tho position of the Liberal party at the present day? It was absolutely impotent; it could not bite, because the leader could not bite—it ran away from big questions such as the land question by sheltering itself behind a Royal Commission. Why was not tho question of taxation included in tho course of inquiry for the Commission? Because it was never intended that it should he. If it were shown by tho Commission that one penny of additional land tax should be added, there were members of his party in favour of the freehold who would send the Premier to tho political Hades. The Premier's action in regard to the PahiaIna election had shown him to be the most colossal political humbug that the Colony had ever known. Since 1890 the Liberal party had,actually failed to inflict a land tax that secured what it said it would secure, and by buying back estates for subdivision it bad given an increased value to tho land of tho colony. They were practically getting the tamo miserable pittance in land tux that they were getting in 1802. The man who cleaned the streets up was playing One-third more in Customs taxation, while the large owners of property with enormously increased values were paying no more. The Littoral party had tome to the time when it should be born again or bo buried. If the leasehold jvaa to be created into' freehold, tho present holders must pay the unimproved value of to-day. Was a Royal Commission required to find out a fundamental principle like that? A cry had been raised against advocates of tho leasehold who owned freeholds or dealt in freeholds. It was poor wit that. Tho position was that the people were iorood into a land system which their intelligence condemned. While ho.con* tended that, although the land settlement system was faulty’ the settlement {hat had gone on for tho past twelve" years had been productive of mormons advantage to the colony. Hub they mist seize all the land that was .requir'd to keep population in the colony. Air Man tier: Why not take tho waste lands?

Mr Taylor: There arc plenty of Waste lands and. plenty of waste people, and roii can’t do much with either.of them. 'Laughter.) It was becoming increasingly difficult for a man to get.on tho land. The State bought land for settle■liout, 'thereby assisting in the increased

value of land and assisting in the difficulties of land :"Ul"iman, and the most df.-irahl", portion of our population was going to other countries. H was not fair lor the Opposition to apply the degrading term of C-eid” to the Crown tenants; they might Just as well apply it, to lime who had acquired land from private owner,-. As (ho years went. Jiy, and before > ' uy years were over, the man who had got the broad acres must make wav for '.ln- man who wanted to apply his labour to the hind. The Hon Me McGowan said the comparison between the unearned increment ami the goodwill was unfair. The goodwill could Iso destroyed at any time, but (ho unearned increment could not In- destroyed. Ho regretted tho personal feeling that, had l)tvm shown during the debate. The right thing to do. on lb? whole question was to sot: up the Commission, and so get all sides of (lie question. The State should ho Die owner ef the whole of the land. First of all, who did it. belong to origin*l' Mr .fames Allen; Who did it belong to Imre originally t J - Mr McGowan: Ic belonged to tho natives—before them to nobody. The present lain! laws were, ho thought, tho best possible for settlement:. Tho Opposition had been as strongly in lavom of federation as they were now in regard to the freehold, but tho Government had proved, hy its action in icgnrd to federation, that il was the true friend of the farmer. Taking that action as a. guide, tho light thing to do now was to carry the Premier’s motion and set up this Royal Commission. Mr Withoford resinned the debate at the evening silting. He declared himself in favour of tho homestead system, and hoped (ho Opposition would cease its obstruction to this motion. (Hear, hear.) An lion nu’inhei': Thai's what wo i want —I Iha homestead .'■iyst-em. Air Withoford: If they will drop their opposition and undertake to carry through a land hill with certain amendments, 1 am quite sure it will meet the purpose. Sir John McKenzie, when he was, in Auckland ten years ago. looked into tho lands north of Auckland, and stated that a Homestead Act, with easy terms of .settlement, vvjlcro land is of .such a nature as to require it, was needed. At the .same time we must all feel this, that the Into Minister of Lands is now in a hotter world, where there is no political struggle and-no demand for roads and bridges. (Laughter.) I cannot, say that I iiopo that my friend the present Minister of Lands will very soon spread ins angelic wings and escape all these troubles, for there’s good work yet to do, and I would rather seo him amongst ns, as he is ono of the best settlors in Now Zealand. (Hoar, hear.) An hon member: You have changed since hist session. ■

Mr Witlieford: No. Ho thought that one of tiro greatest difficulties 'in tho way of the settlement of this question was the preferential tariff of the Bight Hon Mr Chamberlain. (Laughter.) Mr Aitken: It’s broken down. Mr Witlieford: Not yet. The mass of the Lihornls in Knglaud appear deter-' mined on one point, and that is that they are going to have food free into. Groat Britain. He hoped tho Government would display more energy in regard to this hind question and settle people on the land, so that more food could he produced. Mr Banme said the amendment moved by tho leader of the Opposition was simply a trap held out to tho Crown tenants.to induce them to vote for the party of which Mr Massey was the I toad. Tho lease-in-perpetuity lie beTTored to be a bad kind of tenure, for it created a large hotly of Crown tenants who would he a danger to the State, as from time to time these people would comp before tire House, and through their members pray for concessions, which would he granted as bribes in return for their votes. The main point, in the amendment of the leader of the Opposition was that tho tenants should receive tho Crown grant on tho conditions mentioned in • tho amendment, but lie could not agree to those conditions, and lie had always maintained that the market value of tho land should bo paid. Tho proper system of land tenure was, ho admitted, tho freehold, and ho would support, any bill having for its object that .no further leases should be granted unless containing tho option to purchase. ’

Air Herdmnn: Then, why not vote for the amendment ? . , Mr Raume; Because the amendment is a bribe held out, not to tho body of leaseholders, but' to a particular class who support tho ■ hon gentleman and those with him. He supported the setting up of' a Royal Commission, and hoped that the solution of the. problem would prove satisfactory to the country. Throughout the whole Colony tiro feeling in favour of the option to purchaso the freehold was growing, and there was a general desire that tho lease-in-perpetuity should be abolished. Sir William Russell did not think that tho bon member tor Auckland city had done himself credit. Tho only difference between the hon member and tlio Opposition was that he thought a Royal Commission should be sot up to report dn the differences between the Bottlers and tho Crown, which should b-s settled by Parliament. The actuarial question should bo settled as to- what right in perpetuity tho tenant had in the laud which would revert to the Crown in 999 years. Personally, he ventured to say that the amount would be so infinitesimal that it would be. impossible to calculate what that amount really was. Tho Opposition had been accused of sordid’ motives in bringing forward this amendment, but’ such a statement was unworthy of those who made it. Surely they could give one another credit for holding views on a question, however dissimilar these might be. He had listened with pleasure to the four brilliant essays—they were scarcely practical speeches—upon the subject of land nationalisation, and he gave them every credit for honesty and a genuine . belief in a scheme that would tax everyone out of the possession of . their lands. He had always hold : the opinion that there should ! be power given to the Crown tenants to obtain the freehold. The Government did not, to him, appear to have the courage of its convictions, and it was not prepared to take a' vote on this question. Sir George Grey, who had been quoted by the Premier in support of his arguments, had; always declared himself in favour of tho freehold.

Mr Scddon; The deferred payment. Sir. William Russell: Just the same. Did not the Premier remember how Sir George Grey, with tears in his voice but nob in his eye, used to bewail tho woes of those tied to tho laud without iitle? Mr ‘ Scddon: My chief was for tho freehold. Your chief. Sir Horry .Atkinson, was for the leasehold. Sir William Russell: That may be. I have always been able to stand by my own convictions, whatever those of my chief may have been. Wore they to be

told, hy tho setting up of (his Commiss.icii. that Ministers wore useless and ignorant 'f If so. it might he a good Tiing for the Commission to inquire into tho uselessness and ignorance ot Ministers, and why the. Minister ot Gauds, who was supposed to’administer i he Department of Lands, was a cypher and not allowed to do anything connected with his own department. There had been a diminution in the. number of largo estates rather than an increase. The difference between the- Premie: e motion and the lender of tho Oppositions amendment was that the latter affirmed discontent amongst tho settlers, with a, declaration of continuation ot the leasehold and optional freehold, while the former, affirmed that_ it did nor, know what was wanted. What tho Crown tenants wanted was a small degree of certainty. Tire whole..policy of (he land nalionalirers was on tho assumption that land would go up. The point was that there had been no increase in the value of the land; the increase hod boon in tho valuation.. The land nationalises failed to realise that the land tax was not tho only tax paid by the, land-owner, who. in addition paid county rates, harbour rates, and other special rates. Ho would not allow any Crown tenant to purchase his land until he had been five years in occupation. The town-dweller had no love for tho place in which he lived, as compared with’tho love for his homo possessed hy the man in the country who had gono through years •of self-denial. To say that this man. living as a Crown tenant, should he liable to he turned ignominionsly off his land simply because he had got into arrears with his rent, and not allowed in times when he was flush of money to put it into the capital and reduce the liability in view of a rainy day, was monstrous in tho extreme.

Mr Buddo was satisfied . that tho amendment of tho leader of the Opposition was to give tho freehold, and that would result in the freeholder selling to tho highest bidder. Who would he tho highest bidder? The freeholder's neighbour. Hence the aggregation of largo estates. The Crown tenants had been termed serfs, but for twentythree sections offered recently in Auckland distinct, there were 1234 persons who desired to become Crown serfs. As to the hind tenure, lie quite recognised that the settlement of the colony in tho early days required tho freehold tenures The very existence of the colony at that lime demanded it, hut it did not follow that tho system should ho continued with regard to Crown lands, because we bad a growing population, and cheap lands had to bo provided for the younger generations. What must he given iho ‘Crown tenant was security of xenmo; it was not a question of freehold. Tho most saleable estate in this colony was tho lease-in-perpetuity. The Commission of Inquiry would bo of more value concerning tho regulations of land than | the tenure, and for that reason he would support the Premier’s motion. • He contended that if tho whole question j was a burning'ono, it was only so in-, side the House, and not in tho country-1 It was a point for every member *.O study that country settlement must bo fostered and not hampered by an aggregation of largo estates, which a system of freehold might bring about. Ho hoped practical farmers would he appointed to tho Commission and not theorists. Mr Lang would vote for tho amendment of the leader of tho Opposition. Mr Laurenson: We knew that. Mr Lang: I have been consistent in my opinion right through. In his opinion, it would be two years bolero anything was done in the laud matter. Tho Commission proposal was simply drawing a rod herring across the scent. It was a most extraordinary’position for tho Government to take up. The Premier's motion proved that, the land legislation had booh an utter failure. Because of tho Crown tenants’ lack of security some of them had had to pay 10 per" cant, for borrowed money. Tho Hon Mr Duncan: Not. Crown tenants. Mr Hogg: They’re not allowed jo. Mr Lang- They may not bo allowed to, but they do it. If they had had the freehold they could have borrowed money at a lower rate than tho Government rate. They were being treated worse every year. The statement made from the Government side of the House that those members who wished the freehold option to be given wished also to do away with the leasehold tenure was entirely wrong. Mr Herdman quoted from “Hansard” to show that Mr Bsurao had declared in a speech that ho was in favour of the freehold, whilst now, as a supporter of the Government, he threw over his pre-viously-expressed opinions, and was not prepared to stick to his platform pledges. Tho Premier, stated, “My Government is at stake; my political existence depends upon what you do: yon must vote for this motion.” And his supporters, although they had declared in favour of giving the Crown tenants the option of the freehold, would vote against the promises they had made to their constituents. He believed that tho proposal to sot up a Commission of Inquiry was simply a trick: also, it was a complete admission of Ministerial ineptitude. After this Commission had sat, they would be no wiser than they were now. Mr A. L. D. Fraser: You couldn’t bo less.

Mr Hordman: Fellow-feeling makes ns wondrous kind. Ho was sure that a scheme to fit the requirements of the land reform question could have been found by the House or tho hand Department's officers. Tho House was supposed to represent the collective brains of the colony, and he objected to tho Parliament’s obvious duties being relegated to an irresponsible Commission. The point was that the Premier knew that if a straight-out vote on the lease-hold-freehold question was taken ho would bo defeated. Tho Commission was the door of escape from that. Mr Baume, in a personal explanation, said tho member for Mount Ida had misquoted him, and.tho context of his remarks had been spoiled through only a partial quotation being given. Mr Kidd said he would vote for the proposal of the Premier and still maintain his belief in the freehold tenure. The Commission was better than threshing out the matter on the floor of the House. Ho urged that native lands should bo considered by the Commission.

Mr Lewis contended that it was idle to say that the Opposition had adopted this question as a -political move. There could be--no fdoubt of winch way he vote. At one time the Premier’s motto was “Work, work, work”; now it was “Shirk, shirk, shirk.” He (Mr Lewis) had no doubt that when tho Commission’s report was presented the Premier would, say, “Refer it to the people.” Tho debate will be resumed on Tuesday.