LAND TENURE IN NEW ZEALAND.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXVIII, Issue 5832, 24 February 1906, Page 2

LAND TENURE IN NEW ZEALAND.

(To tho Editor “Jv.Z. Tiroes.”)

Sir, —The equitable and beneficent apportionment of the foil of a country among its inhabitants should bo one of the meet vital functions of its rulers, since the land is the one great source from which all things necessary for man’s sustenance and well-being aro drawn. Yet, in spito of this obvious faotA-despite tho lessons of all the ages that have gone before us, and all that history, political science, or deductive reasoning should have taught us—the question of a perfect system of land tonuro remains to-day with the older nations of the earth, as it is with us in Now Zealand, an unsolved, if not an absolutely insoluble problem. Tho tenure under which, in older countries, some lordly aristocrat holds his estate, which some remote ancestor haply secured from its previous holder by cut-throat strategy—duly emblazoned on a coat-of-anns—a title rogally ratiffed later on, authorising him and his heirs ‘‘to hare and to hold for ever” —and tho tenure advocated hy tho " singk-taxcr,” who religiously believes that every rood of land should be leased annually by the State at a fixed rental, thereby solving at onco and for over to his own satisfaction at least, the questions of land tenure and taxation—-differ ■very materially indeed, while between thoso widely divergent modes other systems confront us, as varied in their scope and character as in their ultimate aims and tendencies.. Nor is this to bo

wondered at, seeing that no system yet devised can prove permanently rat; si artery without continual readjustment to suit the ever-varying needs and requirements of successive generations. Take, for example, oar ••perpetual lease.” system: and. assuming it were the solo and satisfactory system ot tenure h.ere ar j re ant. long h *re ill);) years would have expired th.* colony’s population would pmbab'y have increased twenty fold. Now. allowing that verv cone oerahle land snhdivision had taken place in the meantime. yet it is certain that ere the expiration of the leases nine-rent hs oi the people would be practically landless—a result that could not. fail to operate injuriously on the great body of tbo people. Tiider the “ freehold.” system, so strongly advocated by Mr Massey and others, similar and still more disastrous results wmdd follow; and the evil effects wo see in landlord-ridden Britain am; Ireland—where a fractional portion ol the people own all the land, and tae remainder dare not cut a switch Irom a hedgerow lost they bo laded to prison—would bo perpetuated hero. In the faced' facts t-a pregnant with meaning. i-s it right that wo should hypothecate for all time the title to sod of which we are at host hut brief and tempera;/ oeenpants, and virtually sequestrate tier heritage of future generations, iorgetial of the fart that it is just as much the duty of the State to protect the interests of the “ unborn millions ” whom wc sneer at, ns it is the duty of the individual to protect the interests of those ol Ids family who may corao after him What, then, it may be asked, coiiftiintes •' a perfect system of tenure ' ? To which it may be replied: There is no perfect system, any more than them nrc perfect, men and women, a perfect state of civilisation, or a perfect form of earthly existence. In all there, perfection is at best tint a relative term; and in the case of land tenure can only mean that which is best adapted to the requirements of the great body of the people. “ Security of tenure ” is absolutely necessary, in ordpr that the sod may'be utilised to the best advantage, and freehold undoubtedly secures that desideratum —not necessarily a freehold that arrogantly devises to an individual laud to have and to hold for ever, hut freehold that ensures to holder security for the whole fruits of his labour —lh.it enables him to “ sit under his own vino and fig-tree,” to found a homo for himself and his children, and that can only be terminated when the exigencies and requirements of the community of which he is but a unit require its readjustment or rcapportionment on terms equitable alike to himself and tho State. To such a form of tenure tho most inveterate freeholder can scarcelv offer any objection, seeing that it safeguards to tbo utmost possible extent tho interests of the State and the individual.

But a very largo proportion of the community, however well fitted by training or desirous of acquiring homes for themselves upon tho land, arc unabh?, for lack of tho nccef«ary capital, to purchase a freehold, and for these a leasehold system of tenure offers special advantages, enabling them to devote all their available capital to the improvement of their holdings. In this manner many thousands of successful settlers are to-day iu poo-ossiou of comfortable homes, who otherwise would have remained landless; and itis certain that tho leasing a portion of its lands for suitable' periods and under proper safeguards is a wise course for any community to adopt, seeing that lauds held under such form of tenure can readily bo to suit the varying necessities of the people. Vet, would it ho wise and prudent that either leasehold or freehold should, as far as possible, bo entirely optional at tho applicant’s pleasure? Thus the requirements of every section of tho community would bo met; ample scope and protection would be ensured for all occupiers of the soil, while tho State would reserve tho full right of review and readjustment when such became necessary.

Ono great essential towards the success of any system of land tenure is its jest valuation for taxation and other purposes, on its unimproved value. Constant fluctuation in the value of land products demands periodical revaluation, alike in the interests of the State and tho owner or occupier—the onlv fair value to either being that which is current, and not that which is either past or prospective. Apart entirely from the question of land tenure, our ballot system', under which at present Crown lands arc acquired, ncedo radical revision. *At present it is simply tho shuttlecock of unscrupulous rogues, who uso it freely to further their own ends. Fully three-fourths of land applicants aim only to secure a desirable block and then transfer their interest therein to some bona-fide applicant for a substantial consideration. It has come repeatedly under tho writer's notice that bogus applicants have in tliis way secured a valuable piece of land and then sold their interest therein for a large sum of money. Thus one of tho noblest syetems ever devised for securing to the humble seekers after a homo the right of securing such on equal terms with tho wealthy has been shamefully prostituted and brought into undeserved disrepute. Very drastic alterations in this respect are needed. No successful applicant at the ballot .should bo allowed to transfer his or her interest in tho land drawn until at least five years had elapsed and all other conditions of tenure had been complot-1 ed, while no applications for land should t ho entertained unless some substantial guarantee were forthcoming of tho applicant’s bona fidefl and intention to personally occupy the land. Into the multitude of other questions so closely interwoven with that of land settlement I do not propose to enter, ami have hero only attempted to outline the scope and general principles upon which I conceive any just and successful system of land tenure ought to be founded. Nor do I pretend, even in this, to the possession of more than ordinary skill, judgment or intelligence. I claim only the experience and com-mon-sense of an old settler and farmer of over forty years' standing, who shared in all tho perils and vicissitudes of early pioneer settlement in New Zealand, and who would much like to sco a healthy and wholesome public opinion elucidated on this question, upon tho wifvs and successful settlement of which tho future well-being of this young country a<> much depends.—l an* etc., WILLIAM JOHNS. Parnell, February 14th,