The New Zealand Times. FRIDAY, OCTOBER 25, 1912. THE LAND BILL

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVI, Issue 8261, 25 October 1912, Page 6

The New Zealand Times. FRIDAY, OCTOBER 25, 1912. THE LAND BILL

The House of Representatives is now taking the Government Land Bill in committee.

The first night spent by tho Hons© of Representatives in committee of the Land Bill passed without material alteration in tho measure being made. Still, there was interesting debate on various points raised by tho different clauses dealt with, and tho Minister of Lands showed himself ready to benefit by any relevant criticism put forward. This ranged from tho question of preference at the ballot to the prevention of speculation. In tho course of tho discussion it was disclosed that tho Minister had boon obliged to decline an amendment drafted by one of tho Bhamrcformers which would have had the effect of restricting admission to ballots tor Crown land to “ people who had learned the trade of farming.” Mr Massey is to bo commended for his good sense, for, in the first place, farming is not a trade, and, in tho second, no rational excuse could be found for excluding from occupation of land every person not included in a particular class. Such a provision would be a gross injustice, and the grounds on which it was advanced—--11 that men from the towns competed with farmers who were in turn driven into tho cities to compete with unskilled labor there ” —suggests that the member making tho suggestion (Mr Malcolm! was hardly so serious as ho pretended to bo. Tho right to compote at tho ballot should, within certain necessary restrictions, bo unfettered, and we are very much afraid that a mistake is being made in the provision for giving an absolute preference to applicants with “ children dependent ujxm them ” and a preference over all remaining applicants to those who have within two years previously been unsuccessful in at least two ballots. The clause is not very fortunately worded, but its intention, from what Mr Massey had to say, is to give landless people with dependent “ children ” tho first consideration, that is to say, so long as any such ap plicants come forward all others will be ruled out. It is quite conceivable that among the latter may be applicants with responsibilities quite as great as may be represented by tho existence of ‘'children.” For instance, one may have aged or invalid parents, sisters, or brothers dependent upon him. Another prospective settler may have but one child, and thus be ineligible. _ A third may be married, and yet having no children but a delicate wife, be a subject for as much commiseration os if his family were a. score in number. A fourth may be contemplating matrimony, but before entering tho married state be anxious to obtain tho security offered by the right of occupation to a piece of land. Such an individual as the latter would not have a chance to go to the ballot against men who were actually fathers, and, so far as we are able to see, tho preference clause will in his case bo an encouragement to matrimony with widows already possessing offspring, for if he marries anyone else with a view to eventually securing the necessary qualification for settlement he must obviously run a double risk of disappointment. The Prime Minister would do well to look again at this clause. It will, as it stands, give rise to endless confusion and cause just complaint, all of wlfich could be prevented by making it obligatory upon Land Boards to set aside for married applicants with families a portion of any _ land thrown open for selection, leaving the remainder available to corn, petition by all comers who may be eligible. Last night the House reached more contentious matter, and after long discussion affirmed by a large majority the clause giving loase-in-perpetuity settlers the option of conversion to feesimple. The result was not unlooked for, and wo welcome it. ns tho first step towards removing from controversy on the land question an issue by which the progress of real reform has been aide tracked for years. The reasons given by the House for its decision are futile and contradictory. Th© State is not going to suffer by the change, nor are the tenants of the Crown going to gain. The sole effects of the clause will be to relievo the Liberal party from defence of a position which grew more precarious from day to day and to assist in concentrating tho attention of the community upon those conditions and obligations to the State which alone should govern the occupation of land. Several Liberal members of the House were apprehensive that conversion of l.i.p. holdings will be followed by aggregation and suggested, that residence upon the sections should be made compulsory, either by inserting a clause in the Bill te compel this or one to brand the title with Certain provisions to that effect. These members received no encouragement from Mr Massey, who made it clear that he has ho objection to sections being accumulated providing the aggregate holdings thus secured does not in any case exceed the generous limitation imposed by existing legislation. This meant, of course, that he refused to identify himself with placing additional obstacles upon the aggregation of rural lands. One or two members pleaded for ‘‘limitation of area,” others for “occupying ownership” and all the rest of the devices familiar to tho electors.. The Premier was acting wisely in taking the stand he did, even though it exposes the hollowness of his platform protestations on this question. To talk about a narrow, bard and fast limitation of area is to indulge in plain, unvarnished twaddle. The test of ownership is not to bo found in the area a mati possesses, but in its value, and no argument can be found to show that there is anything more heinous in a man hoidiug two or three farms, each of a thousand acres, than in another man owning two or three pockethandkerchief sections in a city thoroughfare, each foot of which may be worth a dozen times tho value of every acre held by the rural proprietor. Some of these members spoke of the incentive that would be given to speculation by allowing conversion of Crown leases, and suggested that this could be checked and aggregation minimised by making residence compulsory. They must know, or ot any rate they ought to know —that traffic in Crown leases is just as rampant now as in land held on fee-simple; that aggregation is going merrily on in every direction. Crown tenants are daily selling out their goodwills and living in idleness on the proceeds. While tho State is

subdividing land in one place our friend tbo accumulator is in another buying up farm after farm. The residence conditions, the tags upon titles, the limitation suggestions and all the other mechanical devices put forward represent just so many useless, impractical and impossible alternatives to the only salutary method of preventing speculation, making labor a condition of occupation and causing subdivision, and that method is a sound system of taxation.

Wo have lagged behind in our land legislation. We have allowed the land to bo used as an instrument for jienalising the labor and enterprise of the people and for levying a gross extortion from industry in every form, i'or twenty years have wo followed a phantom Tike the leasehold and pursued a ruinous policy of purchase, with the result that land monopoly is more strongly entrenched more powerful politically and more rapacious than ever. Our Liberal friends will never play a useful part until they realise this, and the first sign of them doing bo will bo when wo find them ceasing to talk as if “traffic” in farming lands was more objectionable than similar trading in city sites or suburban corner lots.