THE LAND QUESTION.

Opunake Times, Volume XXV, Issue 947, 8 February 1907, Page 4

THE LAND QUESTION.

PRONOUNCEMENT BY THE N.Z. FARMERS' UNION. (Continued) There are provisions in the Bill to enable the lessee to pay off per cent of the capital value on which he has to pay rent; by doing so the advantages he will derive will be that aa he pays off a portion, capital value will be reduced, and when he has paid off 50 per cent, he will be at liberty to work the land as he thinks fit. The advantages to the State are certainly very manifest. Ninety per cent, of the money invested by the State might be paid by tenants, which would enable other land to be bought, and the Lands for Settlement Act continued without further borrowing except the 10 per cent, unpaid by tenants, i When the term expires the money is either repaid to the tenant—if he does not agree to the re-adjustment of rent, or if he re-leases the land the money may remain in the hands of the State —with this proviso:—"lf the Commissioner decides that the land has been depreciated or damaged by the tenant, he can deduct such an amount as he assesses the depreciation 3or damage at from the sum held by the State;" and there appears to be no appeal from his decision. What are tho supposed advantages the tenant would derive (for the offer ia made to him that he may exchange his Lease-in-Per-petuity for a Renewable Lease)? The concession that he can faxm the land as he thinks fit is certainly an advantage, but before he can get this he has to pay into the coffers of the State 50 per cent, of the Crown's interest in the land; this probably means his many years' savings under the© best circumstances, and unless the settler was getting some other . advantage in the

form of improved tenure he

would hardly undertake it for one privilege alone; indeed, amongst settlers holding such leases it will be found that they will be anxious to invest their

savings in Freehold land. It must be remembered that the abatement of rent can hardly be termed an inducement; the rent is 5 per cent, on the capital value, but as the rebate of 10 per cent, of the rent for prompt payment is not being repealed, the rent will only be 4| per cent. . This return would not in itself be sufficient inducement for a man to lock hla money up for perhaps the greater part of 66 years, as there is no provision for him to withdraw it. By an amendment in the Bill .while the measure was before the Waste Lands Committee, privilege of paying off 90 per cent, was given to all holders of the Lease-in-Perpetuity with the same concessions as in the ease of settlers under Settlement Lands. To be able to farm their lands as they think certainly a privilege much coveted by these Lessees, but the position is this: —Almost the whole of the ten-

ants have put substantial improvements •- on their holdings, amounting perhaps to several pounds per acre, and in some cases to much more than the State's interest in the land. Nowall such settlers, if they had the right to purchase the Freehold of their holdings, would simply go to a lending or financial institution, and (provided their interest* amounted to anything more than half that owned by the State) they could get the money required to buy out the State's interest at a moment's notice, and at once clear themselves of all obnoxious & restrictions Land

Boards and Crown Rangers included. The Government, however, arc not satisfied with onethird margin (and this, it might be pointed out is at least the value of almost .every tenant's interest) who has held his land a few years and put the necessary improvements on it); but the State demands, in addition, at least half its own interest before a man can call himself his own master in the management of his busi-

ness. In the case of a Lessee

under the 1892 Act lie is paying &4 per cent, for Iris rent, and, with the deduction of \ per cent. for prompt payment, —3| per cent, in fact—he is paying less than the State can borrow at, therefore from a Government point of view it would be a splendid bargain. But' what is offered the tenant in return? So far as can be seen, absolutely nothing. He would still

be a tenant of the Crown, and his title only a lease, just as insecure as ever to the attacks of

the Socialist through the medium of a "Fair Rent Bill," and in con-

sequence his difficulties of raising private mortgages would be just the same. Altogether the holders of Leascs-iif-Perpctuity have little to thank the Government for in this proposed measure. One of the inducements held out to people in towns to support the Bill is to make Crown lands an Endowment for certain purposes. When we come to set aside so many million acres of land it locks a big thing, but when it is analysed it is not so much after all. Apart from the Settlement lands, which arc not to bo in-' clud'xi m tin Endowment pro-po'->ah l-'io total revenue from all Ciwwrt ? lands is less than £ j''"''XG'>J. m addition to rent, thirj iikluies moniy paid by

settlers in payment for the Freehold of their holdings, also royalties on timber and flax, besides the revenue from various Endowments. A number of these items would have to be deducted, as also the cost of the Lands and Survey Department, which totals £150,000 a year. It will be seen, then, that the balance will be very small indeed. At the present time this is paid into the Consolidation Fund, out of which fund payment is made for Old Age Pensions, Education and Charitable Institutions, and no doubt would continue to be so, even if this Endowment Scheme were carried. If there must be Endowment for this purpose, it" would be much better to invest a sum of money in city property, and possibly set apart the worst of our Crown lands such aa high" country—which are only capabla of little improvement; but the Endowments that have already been made of rural lands show so many evidences of bad farming and consequent loss to the colony, that it would be unwise to continue to apply this principle to our best lands.

The Premier and the Minister for Lands have stated that these proposals are in no sense . a menace to the Freehold, but they too clearly bear the imprint of Henry George's impracticable (and, if given effect to —ruinous) theories. The Premier may not be a believer in Land Nationalisation, but members of his Ministry are, and in the Bill they are exactly carrying out the proposals of the Socialist Party in this country, viz., to first make the principle apply to Crown lands not yet taken up, then to follow up by making them apply to all Crown lands through the medium of a Fair Rent Bill, to leases that were taken up prior to the passing of this Bill; and when this is accomplished it is considered an easy matter to make it apply to all freehold lands. In the Land Act of 1892 the principle of State landlordism was affirmed in the Lease-in-Perpetuity,. but it did not satisfy the Socialists, because the land was locked up for 999 years. The renewable lease goes the step further; that is, to affirm the principle of State ownership to the unearned increment. The lease is, however, for a longer term than they desire, and an effort was to be made to reduce it to 33 years when the Bill was read a second time last session. Having once succeeded in making this principle apply to all Crown Leaseholds, ©it will be a simple matter to bring all Freeholds under the same principle. No workman begins with the thick end of tho wedge. By simply charging a rent (or land tax) on the unimproved value of Freehold lands, such Freehold becomes a perpetual lease, subject to periodical re-adjustment of the rent (or tax), and although the present Government disclaim any intention of making this principle apply to all land, they have gone as far as they have been asked to go at present. "It is, however, probable that the next Parliament would be called on to go one step further, and so on, until the dream of the Socialist Party has been realised.

It is, therefore, time all farmers, freeholders or leaseholders, realised fully that this measure does affect their interests, although perhaps indirectly. If they wish to protect their children, and at the same time study this colony's best interest, they will do all they can to defeat this measure, which can only end to the detriment of qxiy prosperity. There is another objection to this proposed Land Bill that ought not to be overlooked. We have in this country an area as large as England (including Wales), Scotland, and half of Ireland, with a population of less than one million, and at the same time we believe our little country to be one of the best in the world. This being so, how are we going to keep this country? Wc are doing our best by legislative means to prevent the peaceful the colony by Asiatics v-vA to keep it a "White Man's land"; wo kno.w that certain Asiatic nations are looking forward to the dominion of the Pacific, and at a time when it might be necessary for Britain to withdraw the sheltering arm of her "Navy. At such a time, how arc wc to make this country impregnable against the invasion of What we should now consider an overpowering Asiatic horde? Oii'y by our own rural porntlrddo:;. and encouraging oLhcrd O! our countrymen from d '■ r :l:".-.i parts of our Empire to !•■<-.• ;n<! h-.:rc and settle with in. >'■■■'■ ■-':■'■ inducement are we nT-.LMv / i v '- ! est a 66 years' k;i ■■ . • •■: • railed js a lease for iff--, r-n ,': • understanding that v, !:: :: •: ;r-. •) is ending his days if'.-: lb.: f-rni he lias probably cut out of th:; wilderness, he will have the mortificaTO BE CONTINUED.