THE LAND FOR SETTLEMENT BILL.

Otago Witness, Issue 2010, 1 September 1892, Page 8

THE LAND FOR SETTLEMENT BILL.

The second reading of the Land for Settlements Bill was carried by an overwhelming majority. •It is much the same measure as t,hat introduced last session. The alteratipns, however, are of someaniportance. Ji is no longer proposed to acquire land compulsorily. When commenting on the Bill of last year we said that it' would be quite possible to get land in sufficient quantity to give the scheme a, fair trial without "■ resorting to "compulsory measures, and Mr M'Kenzie stated when moving the second reading of the Bill now before the House, 'that he had had several offers of properties, and that' there would be no difficulty, in /getting what might be. required. The leader of the Opposition had no doubt of this, being of opinion that the Minister would most likely have his staircase blocked with people 1 wishing to dispose, of inferior land. Mr -Rolleston held that what was wanted was that the land' should%be taken compulsorily and not as a matter of favour. There is perhaps something in this. The power to take land- in that way would certainly place the Government in a better position for acquiring it even by private .agreement. There can be no doubt that the Minister will be rushed with '"'offers, and we

should say it would •be better on the whole that he should select the land to be acquired, uninfluenced' by the importunity of sellers: The people who are already offering their estates to Mr M'lCenzie must expect to get a better price from the Government than they could get from settlers. The Minister says that there is such a demand for settlement (he means, of course, where the Crown lands are alienated) that no Government could longer ignore it. Why, then, it may be asked, do not the persons who offer their land to the Government dispose of it in response to that demand ? The answer must either be that they expect to drive a better bargain with the Minister, or that the alleged demand does not exist in their locality. There is, indeed, a third possible answer — viz., that the land in question would be readily taken up on perpetual lease, which of course would not suit the owners. As a rule, however, no difficulty is found in selling good land within easy distance of a market at a fair price. The ' presumption, then, is that the land offered to the Minister is of inferior quality, or situated where settlement is at a standstill. . All which would seem to suggest that if the G overnment really mean to promote settlement in the best possible way, they should have, the power of selecting land most suitable ' for that end. Another alteration is the disappearance of the two safeguards — the publication of intended purchases in the Gazette and the ratification of these, when made, by -Parliament. Why these provisions should have been expunged we cannot say, unless it be for the purpose of ""'increasing the Minister's powers. That it will have this effect is beyond question, and we agree with Mr Kolleston that .£50,000 a year is too large a sum to he spent at the pleasure of the Minister in land purchases — we say at the pleasure of the Minister, for 'the proposed 4 Board of Land Purchase Commissioners, composed as it is wholly of Government officials, could, scarcely, be expected to

act as an efficient check, say, on a Minister of the M'Kbnzib stamp. The Surveyor-general, the Commissioner of Taxes, the local Commissionor of Crown Lands,,and the District Land Registrar are "to ascertain, by such means as seem to them fit, the value of any lands which the Governor may propose to acquire"; and then the Governor, with the advice and consent of the Executive Council, may purchase them at any price that may be agreed on between his Excellency and the owner, "on the recommendation of the Board," and may conclude the purchase thereof, and may make, execute, or do all deeds, instruments, things, or matters necessary for the completion of the - purchase. But whether the Governor must in all cases act according to the recommendation of this Board — i.e., if he acts at all — we confess we are not skilled enough in the economy of Acts of Parliament to say. Anyway, it is clear that a Minister with a strong will, or a persuasive manner, would be able to do very much as he pleased in the land purchase business. It was a decided mistake to delete. the clause imposing upon Parliament the duty of confirming the transactions before they could be completed. There cannot be too many safeguards in a scheme so liable to be jobbed. v „

As to the disposing of the land after it- is acquired, the method proposed will probably meet with general approval of the public. It' perpetual lease, pure and simple, is to be adopted at all, we should say it ought to be in respect of these repurchased lands. The rental is to be at the rale of 5 per cent, on the capital value of the land, such value to include not only the purchase money, but also the cost of purchase, of survey and subdivision, the price of land required for roads and reserves, and the estimated cost of administration, so that the State will be assured against loss. As to the wherewithal for the purchases, the Bill makes the same provision as its predecessor— the Governor-in-Council may borrow from the balances in any of the accounts mentioned in Part VIII of " The Public Revenues Act 1891, "or thepublic works fund, or from any bank or monetary institution, or any person or persons. As security for the money borrowed, debentures are to be issued of not less than .£IOO each, and with a currency of not more than 40 years, payable, both as to principal and interest, within the colony. Here is also a slight 'alteration ; in the first Bill the debentures were to be payable at such places within the colony, " or in Tasmania and Australia," as the Governor should prescribe. In the present Bill they are payable only within the colony. The lands, we have said, are to be- disposed of under the perpetual lease system, " with no right of purchase of the freehold," and in allotments not exceeding 320 acres in extent. ' We should say that so long as the scheme is in its experimental stage it would be advisable to cut up the purchases in comparatively small sections. It is probable that the Government regard it as a step towards breaking up the large estates and nationalising the land, but common sense would say that it ought to be used in the first instance to relieve. the most pressing necessities. There are far more working men who cannot get a 5, 10, or 20-acre section than farmers who cannot get 200 or 300-acre farms, and if we mistake not the original intention was to acquire limited areas of good land contiguous to the centres of population, and to parcel it out in such a manner that workmen could make comfortable homes for themselves near their work, and spend their leisure hours, or corupulsorily idle days, in adding to the family resources. This purpose, we think, should be steadily kept in view," as being of a thoroughly practical kind, and likely to confer a

great boon on a numerous class. Land nationalisation can very well afford to bide its time ; nor is it in the least degree probable that the country will ever sanction the purchase of large quantities of land for that purpose.