The Land Bill.

Oamaru Mail, Volume XXXIV, Issue 9656, 9 October 1907, Page 4

The Land Bill.

THE CRT FOB THEFREEHOLD. (Per Press Association.) ; Wellington, October 8. " The House of . Representatives commenced the consideration of -tbe Land Bill in Copimittee this afternoon. The Hon. R. M'Nab, Minister of Lands, had charge of the Bill. v —The _ Lease in Perpetuity.—• . A discussion arose at- one© on clause 3, which provides that the lease-in-per-petuity. shall be replaced by the 66 years ' renewal-lease in" respect of ordinary Crown lands. The -clause commences as follows : —"After the, passing of this Act no Crown land shall be leased' by way of lease in perpetuity." The Hon. C. H. Mills (Wairau) moved to strike out the word *'no," thus retaining the lease-in-perpetuity. He said- that the loes of the lease-in-perpetuity woufel prejudicially aSect land settlement in the dominion. The'main object of the lease had been to prevent the aggregation of large estates, and it had. served that purpose well. The change proposed was a retrograde one, and would not be welcomed by th£ Bettlere. Mr -Massey said that the amendment raised one of the most important questions in the Land Bill. It was a fact that the tenants were nervous in regardto the lease-in-perpetuity. It had been said that no Government would' interfere with the leases, but already attempts had been made to interfere with them. He would be prepared to vote to abolish the lease-in-perpetuity if something better were offered, but a 66 years' lease renewable with revaluation would not be an improvement. The right of purchase should be part of the renewable lease. _ Mr Manders stated' his belief in the principle of freehold for* everyone, with limitation of area. (Mr Hogg 6aid that in his opinion no better lease than the lease-in-perpetuity had been devised- The lease had conduced greatly to the prosperity of the colony, and' he protested against the proposal of the Government to abolish it. The object of the State should.be to settle the land, not to secure- direct revenue from the land. The lease-in-perpetuity did not encourage the land speculator and the monev-lender, but it did encourage the struggling settler, and he would support the amendment. Mr Rutherford said. that the lease-in-perpetuity ha<s served' its purpose; biitit vrzs not a good lease for the State, ana 1 its time had paesed. He added he would vote for the freehold every time he got the chance. Mr W. Fraser said that the renewable lease would not be an improvement on the lease-in-perpetuity. The State had no ri"ht to the increased value of the farmers' land, and the city dwellers, who shared the cost of making roads and railwavs, received a direct benefit in return in the shape of increased trade and general prosperity. The freehold was the best tenure, but- tbe lease-m-perpetuity was tbe best- form of lease. - Mr T. Mackenzie said that the tenures i required by the dominion for Crown lands were those advocated by the Hon. Wm. Kolleston —lease with Tight of purchase, rash purchase, and deferred payments. Those conditions would make for successful settlement in tbe country. ■Mr Witty said that the 999 years lease was a ridicnlous one. No Government had the right to pledge the countrj for a thousand years. The Opposition affected to fear that Eome Governmentwould tamper with the e3uet , in ? and at the same time demanded a verj radical alteration on its own account, the fact was that the lease-m-perpetuity had been a compromise, not a deliberated pro posal, and it .should not be perpetuate^ Jlr Field "said that the interests of the State had to be considered, aa jell athose of the tenant. From the po nt of view of the State the lease-in-perpe-tuitv was the most idiotic lease that could be devised. The tenants under tlmtleasc were not clamoring for the frehold, but he himself believed that it would' be better for the State to get its money back, a£l put an end to a ridiculous position Tbe State was simply in the position of a mortgagee so far m the leases-m-per-petuitv were concerned'. John M'Kenzie's Attitude;— . "Mr Fisher said that Sir Jolni MKrnis had offered tbe lease-itf-perpetuity dehberatelv and after full eonsideraUon aud for ten. veais no one had questioned its success. 'The lease IBd not been given as a compromise at the point of the bayoMinister of Lands: You are S Tanner: I have memoranda on the subject for fifteen years. The element made by tbe last speaker is absolutelywrong. I was here in 1891 and 1892, and I know the whole history 0 f t h e mattex : and the Bill brought down by the Hon. John M'Kenzie as Minister of 1891 contained no proviiion for anythin, in the nature of a lease-m-perpetuity; nor did the same Bill when it was brought down agam in 1892, after having been rejected hj, another pface During the early stages of the Bill 111 , 189 ? the Opposition hardened up to such an extent- that the Minister felt the impossibility of getting it- through without amendment. The Government whips were sent around to interview every member of the Liberal party personally, and ascertain whether a 999 years' lease as a substitute for the proposal of the Bill would be acceptable. I replied that it would- not. The fact- that .such a lease was proposed; was not made public until the Minister was speaking on the second reading, when he announced that he was prepared to offer a 999 years' lease. I could hardlv believe my ears, and I sent a note to the Minister asking whether he really proposed a lease for close 5JP 011 - one thousand years without any modification. Mr M'Kenzie replied "Yea, but itwill onlv last- until after the next election. When the party come back we will soon have it altered." I have always been sorry tuat I destroyed' that scrap of paper. Mr Massey said that a Fair Bent Bill bad ben introduced by a private member in 1894 and bv the Government in 1895. That Bill of 1895 had been the first-at-tack on the lease-in-perpetuity. It had been succeeded by several Bilk, each of which bad' threatened revaluation. The result had been tlx? cry for .the freehold. Mr Buddo said the Fair Bent Bills had not been designed to increase the rents, but to meet cases of distress during the period when the farming industry- was passing tnrough bad times. x Mr Massey said that the Bills had' proposed to give the Government power to raise rents as well as to lower them. Mr Tanner raid that two years previously" the Hon.. C- H. Mills had voted with a Government majority in the direc- ■ tion of affirming ,the desirability of j abolishing the lease-in-perpetuity. ] Mr Mills replied that he had voted with the Ministry of which he had then been a member. _. After some further discussion the I amendment- was rejected) by 40 to 20. The division list was as follows: — For the amendment —Messrs J. Allen, Baume, W. Fraser, Greenslade, Hardy, Herries, Hogg, Houston, Jennings, Lang, Lethbridge, T. Mackenzie, Malcolm, Mander, Massey, Mills, Ofcey, Reid, Remington, and Ross. Against the amendment —Messrs Aitken,° Alison, Arnold, Barber, Baiclay, Bennet, Buddo. Carroll, Colvin, Dillon, Ell, Field, Fisher, FJatman. Gray, Guinness, Hanan, Hornsby, Kaihau, Kidd, Laurenson, M'Gowan. M'Nab, Millar, Xgata, Parata, Poland, Poole, Rutherford, Seddon, Sidey. Stallworthy, Stevens, Steward. Tanner, 'Thomson, Ward, Wilford, Witty, and Wood. —An' Opposition Proposal.— Mr Alison then moved to add words ma'iing tbe amendment read as follows: —"After the passing of this Act no Crown lar> { shall be leased by way of a lease-in-perpetuity, bnt all Crown lands shall be disposed* of under the occupation with right of purchase system." This amendment to strike out the 66 years'' renewahlelea6e from the Bill. The Minister of Lands said that the_ amendment- simply meant the abolition of the option so.far as Crown lands were concerned. -The Government- proposed that, the settler should decide whether he would pay cash for the land', take it under' occupation with right- of purchase, or accept a renewable lease. The amendment meant that every acre of the land most be disposed of under the occupation with Tight of purchase tenure; _ . . Mr Massey said -that occupation with right of purchase was the most popular form of tenure amongst settlers. ' The only way to settle the rural land was to give every tenant the right to secure the freehold. He thoroughly agneedwith. tbe amendment-. The Minister of' Lands said! - that the amendment proposed ,to ; abolish every* form of tenure except dhe for the remaining Crown lands. The last shred, of option was to" be removed from' the land.

system of- the coSony. "The lease of: land in the form of small grazing runs and the various other leases, and l the cash System were all to be swept away, and replaced by the occupation) with right of purchase. - Mr Maaeey said that the Minister was most, unfair,' "and that consequential amendments mightbe necessary; but the : intention: wafi simply t<r throw out the 66 ■yeaTs? lease—the most ever sub-, mitted to'an intelligent Parliament-. Mr Alison's intention had been to provide that every man who took up: Crown laaid should have the option of the freehold. - -Mr Lang said it was simply a' question 'between the renewable lease and the occupation with right of purchase. Mr Stevens said that he was a, freeholder, but a fair compromise had been arranged. He was not prepared to throw away the substance of compromise, for the shadow of universal freehold'.. -• ■. The Preimier said that the country did not want the extreme'on one or the other side. Tbe Government gave settlers • a choice between freehold for cash, occupation with' right of purchase, and lease. The amendment proposed to offer the settler nothing but-occupation with right of purchase. That would be most undesirable. \ The land reformers had made very big concessions, 'and the House could not fairly take an extreme step in the other direction. Mr Mlassey said that- the House had been given some information. - A compromise had been arranged between the Liberal freeholders and the land nationalisers. The Liberal freeholder had sold the lease-in-perpetuity. and nine _ million acres of Crown lamd to be set-aside .as an endowment. The land nationalisers had made no corresponding concession. They had got half of what- they wanted, and hoped for the rest at *a later date. That sort of•- thing had been going on for yeaTS. The land nationalisers had made a good bargain for. themselves aind a bad one for the country. . The Premier said that a leaseholder was not' a land nationaliser. Great political problems could be solved only by compromise, and the Leader of the Opposition ■had been -endeavoring to create a false impression. Mr Laurenson said that he did not think the House contained- any land nationalisers. The man who believed m land nationalisation wished to turn every &cre of land in the dominion into State property. The land reformers simply asked -that the small remaining balance of the Crown lands should be retained as State property, in order that State leaseholds might be available as stepping stones for settlers who bad not the money to buy freeholds. The debate on the amendment was carried on until close -upon 11.30 when the amendment was rejected on a division by 45 votes to 20. The division list was as follows, — ' For the amendment —Messrs Ahsom, J. Allen, Bennet, Bollard, W. Fraser, Greenslade, Hardy, Herries, Jennings, Lang, Lethbridge,. T. Mackenzie, Major, Malcolm, Mander, Mlassey, Okey, Read, Remington, and Ross Against the amendment —Messrs Aitken, Arnold, Barber, Barclay, Buddo, Carroll, Colvin, Dillon, Ell, Field, Fisher, Flatman, Fowlds, A. L. D. Fraser, Graham, Gray, Hanan,. Hogan, Hogg, Hornsby. Houston, Izard, Kaihu, Eidd, Laurenson, Lawry, M'Gowan, M'Nab, Macpherson, Millar, Mills, Ngata, Parata, Poland, Poole, Seddon, Sidey, Stallworthyj Steward, Tanner, Thomson, Ward', Wilford, Witty, and Wood. —The Right of Purchase. —• iMr Lang then moved to add to the clause the words "with Tight of purchase during the term." The effett- of the amendment would have been to. make the option of purchase one of the teTms of the 66 years' renewable lease. J 3tr James Allen said that the object of the amendment was to enable a settler to get the option of the freehold on a 4 per cent, basis, .instead of having to pay 5 per cent, under the occupation-wit-h----riaht-of-purchase tenure. The Minister of Lands said that the amendment simply meant parting with all the Crown land. He was prepared to go to a vote if the House understood the proposal. In answer to a- question, the ALinister said that the renewable lease was being substituted for the lease-in-perpetuity in everv instanoe. Settlers -taking up land • under the occupation-with-right-of-pur-chase system, and not exercising the ■ option within the 25 years allowed, would be given a renewable lease instead of a • lease-in-perpetuity as at present. The amendment was rejected on a division by 3'7 votes to 25. Clause three, which had been discussed for over seven hours without bcinp amend- > ed, was then adopted on a division by • 41 votes to 20. The effect of the clause •- is to abolish the lease-in-perpetuity in favor of the renewable lease. Progress was reported at midnight, the day having been occupied with one clause of the Bill, which contains 75 clauses.