MR RICHARDSON'S LAND BILL.

Otago Witness, Issue 1880, 2 December 1887, Page 17

MR RICHARDSON'S LAND BILL.

WHAT TWO OTAGO AGRICULTURAL MEMBERS THINK OP IT. MESSRS VALENTINE AND J. M'KENZIE INTERVIEWED BY THE WITNESS' CORRESPONDENT. As the abstract of the speeches on the Land Bill furnished by the Press Association will be necessarily brief, and as it will be som« time before the debate appears in "Hansard," the idea struck me that it might prove of interest to your country readers to learn thii opinions of two well-known Otago settlers on the measure. I accordingly interviewed Mr Valentine and Mr John M'Kenssie this afternoon on the subject. I pointed out to them that my object was to obtain the views of a supporter and an opponent of the bill, so that the country settlers of Otago would be made acquainted, through the columns of the Witness, with the most forcible arguments for and against Mr Richardson's measure. Both gentlemen expressed their willingness to comply with request. Commencing with MB. VALENTINE that gentleman stated that the new Land Act Amendment Bill is a complete reversal of_ the policy adopted by the late Government in dealing with the Crown lands of the colony, and will be found to act very effectively in promoting the rapid settlement of the land as compared with the acts under which the late Government; sought to promote settlement. All of the fad* and mad freaks, he says, in which they indulged have been swept away A aud now a reasonable and intelligent mode, of settlement has been put forward by .the Minister of Landh. The new bill provides that applicants for land, whether surveyed or otherwise, cm now make application for any section of surveyed land or blocks of uusurveyed land on either of the terms set forth in the act— viz., for cash, on deferred payment, or on lea^p, at the option of the applicant. Mr Valentine thinka this an exceedingly liberal provision, as it leaves the matter of the conditions under which land may be acquired entirely in tho hands of the settlers themselves, aud not, as formerly, in the hands of the Government, who set apart lands under the various terms of purchase, and which could not be otherwise dealt with, sometimes at great loss to the country, and to the detriment of bona fide settlers. The minimum price of land has been fixed at 20s for first-class laud, and 10s for second-class laud. Mr Valentine thinks under the circumstanes a larger amount of land will be sold for cash during the coming year thau has been the case for some years past, and consequently more mouey will be expended on the construction of roads and the opening of new districts for settlement. The bill, Mr Valentine thinks, has been drawn up with the view of meeting the demands which have lately been made by the settlers, particularly in Otago and Southland, and on the whole the demands have been fully met; but he decidedly objected to the fourteenth clause, which provides for a continuance of the method of disposing of laud by competition when there is more than one applicant. The clause runs as follows :— (14) Where simultaneous applications , are made under this act for the same land (i) by persons wishing the land on the same tenure, the priority of choice between them shall be determined as provided iv the said act (2) By persons wishing to have the land on different tenures, then the land shall be put up to auction between the applicants at the upset cash price, and the highest price bid at such auction for the land shall be the price thereof. If the laud is to be held on deferred payments, 25 percent, upon such value; and if the land is to be held on perpetual lease, the annual reuts shall bo estimated upon the aforesaid value. Mr Valentine has given notice that when the bill is in committee he will move the following amendment—via. : "That subsections J aud 2be struck out, and that in place thereof these words should be inserted, 'the priority of right to occupy or acquiro the land shall be determined by lot in the manner to be provided by regulations in that behalf.' " MR JOHN M'KENZIE said to me in effect :— I think the Land Bill is a blunder from beginning to end. Let me point out a few of the defects. It gives the power to tho Minister of Lands to open for selection before survey all lands in the colony, with the exception of small special settlements and small runs. It gives absolute power to the Minister to declare any run a secoud class run, and sell it at 10s per acre. This is a power that no man should possess. I contend that certain of its provisions do away with any safeguard for settlement on the land. The bill also introduces the auction system instead of tender. Now the tender system was accepted as a compromise, aud it has worked very well. The auction system is surrounded with evils of the worst type. Then again, the bill will enable a purchaser of unsurveyed land to have a survey made to 6uit himself, without consideration as to how it will af^cb future surveys aud sale. In the case of public reserves the bill provides that they shall become freeholds, and this I consider Ruother objection. The bill gives fche Minister of the day the power to say what money should

be paid to local bodies for road purchase, &c. Then again, it takes from the commissioners or trustees of education reserves tho power to deal with their own tenants, and hands it over to the Minister of the day. Jt abolishes land boards and transfers the powers of the boards to a commissioner who is under the thumb of the Minister. The entire control of the pastoral runs is to be transferred to the Commissioner of Lands and the Minister. Now, I am strongly opposed to this abolition of land boards. I think the number of members of each board might be reduced to three, and think they should be elected by the people. If this bill becomes law it will take all the power out of the handa of the School Commissioners, and this, I think, is to be deprecated. To sum up my opinion of the measure, I may say that its drastic character might be overlooked if the reforms contemplated went in the right direction, but, unfortunately, they do not. How, in the name of common sense, Major Atkinson can countenance such a measure I cannot make out. It is a complete reversal of the land policy of his former colleague, Mr Rolleston. His action in this matter is only another illustration of the shifts to which he will resort in order to retain office. In conclusion, I may 6tate that while I admire many traits in the character of the Hon. G. F. Richardson, I venture to predict that if this bill becomes law it will damage his reputation in a remarkable degree.