LANDS FOR SETTLEMENT

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXI, Issue 6994, 7 December 1909, Page 8

LANDS FOR SETTLEMENT

MORE EFFICIENT ADMINISTRATION. The Prime Minister moved the second reading of tho Lands for Settlement Administration Bill. There was, he said, no change of the vital principles of tho land for settlement policy contemplated by the amendments proposed. It only embodied alterations in tho present system of administration and procedure as would more efficiently carry out the purposes for which the Act was designed. It made provision for the financial method? of raising money and keeping accounts in future, and also changes in land administration, regarding the manner in which allotments in minor estates might be selected and occupied. It gave authority to raise .£1,000,000 of money jin each financial year. The, former au- ! thority was for .£500,000. It had been decided in connection witli native land purchases to spend an additional half a million a year on the acquisition of these lands. The Bill gave power to increase the present authority to that extent. The payment of tho principal and _ interest for the whole of the money raised is to be guaranteed by the Government. The rate of interest was not to exceed ii per cent., oud the money was to be paid into a separate account called tho "Land for Settlement Account." Provision, was made for the recoupment of the money outlaycd from the Land for Settlement Account. Under the measure, the area of first class land which could be held was reduced from 1000 to 400 aores; second class from 2000 to 1000; and the third from 5000 to 2000. The sizes of the holdings would be quite sufficient to enable the occupier to maintain himself and family on the land held by him. It also had to be remembered that it was land of an improved nature and fully capable of cultivation, and utilisation. The Bill as orig:nally| introduced had made provision that _ em-' ployees on estates compulsorily acquired,! and who had been employed on the land for five years, should be entitled to, lease allotments prior to the land beingi offered for selection. When, the Bill wasj before the Lands Committee the portion, dealing with the acquisition of a por-i tion of an estate by an employee was] struck out. The employees now had tol come in in the ordinary way and had! to take their chance with the other ap- 1 plieants. The mover outlined the alterations made in connection with the acquirements of land for workers' dwellings and small farms, also the provision re-! carding the valuation of properties. TJn-;' der the Valuation 801 l Land Amendment; Act of 1907 it was provided that owners: of estates, could apply to the ■ ValuerGeneral to incirease the valuation ontheiri properties for the purpose of taxation.] This had - led to abuses, and the new clause was introduced in order to get the valuation reduced. Without this it; would be impossible to take oveT estates' at present, as the values were so high.. No tenant could pay the rental that; would be xequired to make up thei interest an the money spent in the pur-J chase of estates.

"A SERIOUS DEFECT." j "I think we should have had a morej detailed explanation of this Bill," said the leader of. the Opposition, Mr W. F.. Massey. He had' no doubt that from the point of view of the public it was simply an administrative Bill, as it didi not interfere very seriously with the principles of the original Land for. Settlement Act, though it did interfere, seriously with the details. But it was as well that _tho Land for Settlement Department fend its administration should come under review now and again. In connection with the work,of tho department it seemed to him that t~o most serious- defect was the fact that sufficient attention had not been given to the smaller class of settlement. (Hear, hear.) He was speaking of the desire of many small men to take up land in areas of between twenty-five and one hundred acres, men who had plenty of industry, but not sufficient capital. These were just the men for whom the department had not catered in the past. A. great deal had been done in tho direction of cutting up large sheep runs, but_ he did not think that they should go on using the capital and . credit of the coilntry for these purposes in the. way that had been done in the past. He 'felt confident taat in committee an amendment would have to be made to provide for this smaller class of settlement. He had understood from a speech mode a little time before that it was the intention of the Government to put an end to the land for settlement scheme -as it was too co=tly. Well, as political confessions weTe the order of the day he would like to' say that ho believed thoroughly in the " Land for settlement scheme. He would, however, 'like to improve upon it by giving everyone who took up land under it tbo option of the freehold. He would let them pay the capital value of the- land into the department, to be used for purchasing land whenever required by tho necessities of the country.

! "What would you have to . pay for it?" asked Sir Davey. Tie leader of the Opposition Vent on to complain that in the annual report of the department this year they had not been, furnished with 'all the details that had been given in the past. It was quite impossible to obtain from the 'report this year any details regarding the working of any particular. estate, ond this he regarded as 'a serious omission. He objected to the proposal in the Bill to reduce the amount of land a man may retain when 'his estate is taken by the Government. It bad always seemed to him that this area should depend upon the size of a man's family—(hear, hear)—>and' that a man should be able to keep more if he had, say, two or three sons who would work it. The proposal as to compulsory taking of land in the vicinity of boroughs for workme.n'3 homes seemed to him to be very unfair. It was provided that such could be done in the case of land which lay within twenty miles of a borough of five thousand peorole. and that the owner should only be" allowed to retain ten acres. That would practically extend to every farm in the country, and would never do. It was bound to result in harm and the" creation of uneasiness. : It was hi*i belief that an extension of the operation of the Advances " to Workers Department would bo a good way out ; of the difficulty. In order to safeguard the interests of the owners of land taken oompulsorilv, ho thought they should

be allowed to go to tho Assessment Court and have the valuation fixed Incompetent assessors. If this could not be provided for, then the next best thing would bo to have the .subsidiary roll. THE CRY FOR THE FREEHOLD.

Mr O. AV. .'Kussoll (Avon) claimed that tho foundation of th« land fori settlement scheme- was that the man wl.ol was landless should bo given preference, at the ballot. If this had been carried out in its entirety there, would have been vorv little outcry lor tho freehold tenure. " Hut had it? Could it be denied that thoro was 'an earth hunger in. the Dominion? If ever there had been a rctton civ raised it had been, to his mind, that "of 'tho freehold, which had been agitating the country for the last three vears. [f the Government carried out the scheme of leases being based en the ocounation with right of purchase, in every case tho capitalist would be standing at the hack of the poor applicant for land. The bringing in ol the freehold tenure and occupation with right of purchase would have a great effect upon the rate of interest. It would go un from 2 to 3 per cent, at the least. Voices: Oil, no. Mr Russell declared that this would bo tho inevitable result. The capitalistic ■party was the one driving the question of the freehold into its present state. The reason was that it held the money bags, and if it succeeded in bringing the •leasehold into a state of freehold it would 'mean a big demand for money. On March Mst last there were only 3(3 persons holding leases under renewable leases. For that 373 and their votes the whole of 'the leasehold policy must bo capsized. If ever there was a reason for altering the policy of the past it had not been shown. The r,cheme winch it was proposed to break down had been ■an absolute success. The people who •held the land 'had been happy, contented ■and prosperous. There was no reason •to disturb the existing conditions. Successive Ministers had paid too much re"ard to tho largo ' man. They should ■have paid more attention to the- small man. Tho rural holdings should consist of from fifty to one hundred acres. The 'question of tenure should be maae entirely subordinate to that of the settlement of the land. (Hoar, hear). Mr W Frasr (Wnkatipu) twitted Mr; Russell with having wasted so much time discussing the question of tenure, which was rot involved in the Bill. Settlement would be more satisfactory and rapid df they had a tenure such as the .people desired. Those who had strenuously endeavoured to prevent the House discussing the question of tenure would find that their efforts were futile if tho Government was only determined that the matter should be resolutely considered by the House. He. thought there was a gcod deal of make-believe in the financial proposals of the Bill. He could not 'understand how they could reduce- the public debt by deducting Government debentures, because there must continue to be debentures-issued by the Government of the Dominion until such time as they were required to be renewed or paid off. To him the proposal seemed to suggest something in the nature of account "cooking." He desired to know whether the Land Settlement Acco-unt would appear in the Budget. They had a right to get it. There was no limitation of area to any applicant for land under the Bill. He had always supported tho Land fox Settlement scheme, and he intended to continue to support it. The reduction of tho amount of land, a man might hold -was an improvement. Mr D. Buick (Palmcrston North) contended that tho Bill would create a feeling of uneasiness amongst small farmers who held areas near boroughs. THE REAL OBJECT.

Mr James Allen (Bruce) said he lthought the object of the Bill was to I prevent the- money spent in the acquisiitioai of land from appearing in the pubr I lie debt. He hoped there would be no subterfuge in regard to the. public debt. ,It should be made plain to the Rous9 (what was the. object of' altering the Inature of the security the. colony was lettering for the money borrowed from jthe public outside. Was the Premier 'pledging and pawning the freehold estate Idirectly to the outside people? The House jsliould be enlightened on this point, as members would no doubt hesitate to 'sanction such a course. If boroughs 'of SCOO inhabitants increased to any extent the tame would oome when. aniy land in INew Zealand might be taken under the [workers' part of the Bill, and the farmer Icould only retake 10 acres of it. This I Iwas not as it should.be. Too much'power Iwas given under this portion of the jßill. Mr W. C. Buchanan (Wairarapa) hdpi ed the acquirement of land by the Gov'erniment for settlement would be continued. It would bo perfectly ridiculous I Ito reduce the maximum amount of firsticlass land to 400 acres in the case .of 'hundreds of thousands of acres in both islands which was only suitable for {carrying 'Sheep. Tho clause ' required radical amendment. Land must be divided into more than three classes. In .some districts, 5000 acres would oot' be too much to hold. He did not object to tho reduction in the ar.ea, but to the classification. Ho did not agree with ithe proposal that land could be acquired for' workmen's homes within twenty miles of a,' borough of 5000 inhabitants. In the North Island, there were eleven such boroughs, so that the whole of the island was practically covered. Some alteration should be made in this direction. WORKERS' HOMES.

Mr E. Newman (Manawatu) and Mr A. Dillon (Hawke's Bay) took particular objection to the clause providing for the compulsory acquisition of land near towns for workers' dwellings.

On the other hand, Mr D. McLaren (Wellington East) hoped' that' the proposal was But a, precursor of an earnest desire on the part of the State to deal with what was a very real problem in the larger communities. _lt anything was to be done in this matter it would have to be on a much larger scale than had ever been attempted in the past. He found that during tho past year, only twenty-six workers' houses had been completed, with a total of 108 since the Act came into force. At that rate he was convinced that they would hear the trump ctf docjn before any real effect was perceptible as regarded the housing problem. It seemed to him that the right and only way to deal with the problem was to compel the use of land which was held for speculative purposes and left lying idle nnd waiting for the increase in value which came with the extension of communities.

Mr G. Witty (Riccarton) urged that when an applicant had "been successful in a ballot he should he debarred altogether from taking part in subsequent ones. No preference should be given to any man under any circumstances, and it should be made compulsory for' men to reside on their land as long as the land was there. The Bill as a whole was-sa good one, and likely to. have satisfactory results. • - . . Mr T. M. TVilford.(Hutt) quoted figures showing the prosperity that can be attained by men who have small areas of rich land to work, and expressed the view thnt a policy of cutting np land into holding* of five- or ten acres would 'be very valuable for dwellers in Kmv Zealand cities at odd times when other work was not available. It h»d to be remembered that thera was still _ a large section of the New Zealand, public, especially of the .workers.- who could not. onerate large farms tut "onld make a by tho u<;9 of Hma-11 holdings, and- so' bring about a very much better state of things for everyone concerned. | SIMPLY RUINATION. . |

Mr F. TV. Lang (Mannkau) said that the particular provision under discussion would simply mean ruination to many men in the 'country. Tf. for instance, a man had fifty acres in the neighbourhood of a town .he would be liable to have it reduced to ten acres by- the rest being taken compulsorily. He considered that the Bill wonld be a distinct improvement on the existing law-, especially ><■> its tendencr was to cut land up into, smaller areas/ ■

The Hon. T. Duncan (Oamani) urged that it was time that local bedics ware compelled to utilise their land to the same extent as the Government. Now thev were able to put the leases up to auction at the end of every term, but that was -not the way to encourage men to settle down and make homes lor themselves. He approved the general tendency of the Bill.

Mr J."B. Hine (Stratford) said that he went with the Radicals so far as to believe that every man who wanted to should' be given an opportunity to get on the land, but he went no further with them than that. The Bill seemed to him to be a good one, Mr AA". 11. Herries (Tauranga') voiced specially strong objection to the clause dealing with the compulsory acquisition of land for workers' homes. It would place practically farmers at the mercy of tho Government, and should not be tolerated. All the same, there was no provision upon which he ■ would rather go to the country, if there should be a general election within the next two months. "A more dangerous clauso I have never seen," said Mr A. W. Hogg (Masterton) in dealing with the same point. It would mean that every farmer within the prescribed radius would be in a constant state of alarm, for he would never know when his place would be taken away. If he were to say a word in favour of the clause he would never dare to face his constituents again. There was no necessity for the clause at all, and it seemed' to him to be a blemish upon the whole Bill. Mr If. J.. H. Okey (Taranakil nlf-o opposed tho clause, which he thought would do very much harm to" a large number of small farmers.