THE LAND BILL

New Zealand Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 6179, 10 April 1907, Page 3

THE LAND BILL

vSPKKCH BY MR ROSS, M.H.R. Speaking at a Farmers' Union picnic at Mangalore on Wednesday, 3rd inst., Mr R. B. Ross, M.H.R. for Pahiatua. said that, viewing the general satisfaction and prosperity that existed there (Viangatorol, and being conversant with the condition of the great hulk of acquired estates, ho lelt justified in saying that the GovernSnout’s laud for settlement policy had boon undeniably suecessl ul. Fresh enterprise had been carried into districts, the work of development had been pushed on with energy and indusl/rv, and large areas of neglected land iiad been brought into profitable occupation. The policy of transfoiming large half-developed estates now monopolised by a few holders into closed v-fa fined settlements, was undoubtedly a policy of very considerable value to the colony, and one that must ho vigorously pursued. He was : fully aware that there was a very great diversity of opinion as to the he>t and most equitable means of providing land for settlement to meet iho ever-increasing demands of the country, hut all had In admit! that llu* demand existed, and also recognise that it must he met. There wore, to ■ Ids mind, two great disadvantages connected with our land for settlement policy. Firstly, the enormous debt we were building up, already nearly five millions, for lands purchased hn*d leased to settlers for 090 years. Secondly, iho tendency tnat acquisition and subdivision, piocn by piece, of .land by the State had to inflate the values of adjoining estates, which in turn were purchased by the Government at a considerable advance on what was paid for the previous acquisition. This meant dear laud to the farmer, and disaster to all concerned. if there happened to come a slump in our grain products. As fains the indebtedness of the colony for land purchases was con corned, that could readily bo remedied by granting settlers the right to acquire the freehold, and applying the money so obtained from time to time towards liquidating the debt, or purchasing more land for settlement. . In regard to the exorbitant prices that were being demanded by holders of land required for closer settlement. Ross had no better remedy to suggest than the adoption of Mr McNab’s fifty thousand pound limitation, or an increase in. the graduated land tax. Tho loader of tho Opposition and the Farmers’ Union were, he understood, in favour of tho latter. He wont on to say that during the few minutes at his disposal ho had no intention of professing to deal with tho > complexities of Mr McNab’s measure —it would take an hour or two to do so —but, having mentioned it, he might say that, briefly speaking, ho was opposed to tho greater part of the Bill. TENURE. In regard to tenure he wac strongly of opinion that the optional system was the best, and ho could not seo what right any man had to dictate to his neighbour what tenure ho should hold liis land under, so long as that neighbour was called upon to comply with the same general conditions as to area and residence, coupled with an equitable adjustment of taxation. His land creed was that tho man who farms tho land should own it (or, at least, have the option of doing so), and the man who owns the land should farm it, not iiv© in town and farm the .occupier. He was opposed to permanent landlordism of any kind in land, whether by the State or by the private individual" Ho would give to every man going on to land tho right to hold that land on such tenure as was best suited'to his capacity, sentiments, and means, having duo regard to tho importance and limitation of atea. He wished it to be dearly understood that he was not opposed to leasehold, so long as the right to purchase was given. In fact, he considered it tho duty of the State to assist persons of small means on to the* land ; but for any person to maintain that, by preventing tho present L.I.P. holders from acquiring tho freehold, this movement was being assisted, was, to his mind, simply nonsense, because in many cases tho State’s interest in these holdings was .very little over a pound an acre, and the tenants interest was fully five pounds per acre. Consequently it would at onco be recognised that it was more difficult for a man of small means to get on to L.I.P. land, unless ho could get it direct from the State, than it was for him to acquire a freehold. This came about, to a great extent, through the difficulty he would experience in raising on L.I.P. security a sufficient sum on mortgage to pay tho present occupier for his interest. FREEHOLD FOR CROWN TENANTS. Why there should be any opposition to granting tho freehold to Crown tenants lie was at a loss to understand. No person could deny that the 999year lease gave tho whole of the increased value to the tenant; in fact, according to tho evidence given by Mr Alexander Reese (a member of tho Wellington Land Board and an ardent L.I.P. advocate) before the Land Commission last year, the L.I.P. was a very bad bargain for tho State. Mr Reoso took two sections of land of equal quality, price, and acreage, say, 200 acres, at 30s per acre. State’s iatercst and £3 per acre tenant’s interest. one section being L.I.P. and tho other 0.R.P., and found, from a careful handling of the question, that if the O.R.P. tenant took advantage of bis option at tho end of ten years and purchased the freehold, lie was £ll 9s a year worse off for 999 years than tho L.I.P. tenant. Assuming Mr Koesc’s computations and conclusions to bo right, what sense was there in refusing the right to purchase being conceded to tho settlers, so long as stringent measures were adopted to prevent aggregation, of which there need bo no fear? The people of New Zealand wore now fully alive co the virtue of close settlement, and were almost unanimous that no man should hold more land than lie could farm to tho highest advantage to himself and the State. ENDOWMENT PROPOSALS. Tho endowment proposals in Mr McNab’s Bill did not meet with his approval. because their inclusion in n Land Bill was merely an attempt to take advantage of the words '‘old age pensions” and “education” as a lever to secure a vote in favour of tho sixtysix years lease ns against the freehold. There was no getting away from tho fact that the inclusion of endowment proposals in a Land Bill raised the whole question of tenure. Mr McNab’s endowment proposals placed the whole burden of providing for old ago pensions, education and charitable aid on tho users of rural lands, whilst townspeople, who undoubtedly secured tho greater advantages from at least our education system, wero exempted, inasmuch, as the Bill only dealt with rural lands. As a act off against these proposals ho (.Mr Ross) had last session

the Government—‘Whether they would consider tho advisableness ot bringing all native rural lauds, other than those in occupancy and being farmed by natives, and all the educational and other endowments of rara lands, under the operation o; the Land Act, by placing them on tho market under the optional system, and devoting the moneys so obtained i roni tune to time to the purchase of loan lamL. which could be made inalienable and leased on short terms (.fourteen to twenty-one years) to town advocates of land nationalisation, thus securing for education, hospital and charitable aid. and old age pensions, and tho natives tlte full unearned increment, at the same time giving to each section of tho community the tenure they advocatc—that is to say, optional ircchold to the farmer and short-term leasehold with revaluation to the townsman. He was quite in sympathy with and recognised the wisdom of making provision by way of endowments for old ago pensions, education, eti., but was opposed to one section of tho community being singled out to carry the babv. If tho Government would eliminate tho endowment proposals from their Land Bill and introduce an Endowment Bill, imposing equitable responaibilitics on town and country, he was quite prepared to support an Endowment Bill, but not otherwise.