THE LAND TENURE QUESTION.

Otago Witness, Issue 2660, 8 March 1905, Page 6

THE LAND TENURE QUESTION.

The fact that the administration of the land laws by the Boards appointed for the purpose is upon its trial before the Koyal Commission that has this week commenced its labours should not be allowed to detract from the value of the resolutions adopted in December last at the conference between the Minister of Lands and the Commissioners of Crown Lands and" members of Land Boards. These resolutions, which have now been made public for the first time, are of considerable importance, as they represent the conclusions arrived at by a body of men who have been engaged for a large number of years upon the duty of administering the Land Acts in various parts of the colon}-. But it is of not less interest to know what the Conference decided not to do than to be informed what it resolved upon, and this is especially the case in respect to the question of the method of disposal of Crown lands. And it is somewhat misleading when the public is told in the register of the resolutions that were adopted that an affirmation of the desirability of the re-introduction of the system of deferred payments, applicable only to ordinary Crown lands, constituted the sole determination of the Conference upon the question of land tenures. Even this decision, it is alleged, "cannot be taken as a complete index of the

opinions held .by all the members of the Conference." That is a statement that must be taken simply for what it is worthy In no case, where opinion is divided upon a point, can the resolution that is carried by a majority be regarded as completely reflecting the opinion of an entire meeting. But, so far as we can judge from the report, the opponents of the motion in favour of a reversion to the deferred pa-yinent were content to allow the question to be decided against them on the voices. The Minister of Lands himself presented a spectacle of rather pathetic helplessness in relation to the matter. "He was in the hands of the Conference," he said, " and, in any case, the beet of the Crown lands were practically gone, and as to the remainder, he would be glad to settle them almost at any price, so that a trial of this system again could not do much harm." Mr Duncan is, in fact, surprising though it may seem, a man with no very settled convictions on the land tenure question. He has imbibed from his Ministerial chief and, colleagues a good deal of that spirit of opportunism which so largely marks their political course of action. Of this, sufficient proof was afforded in the speech delivered by him during one of the most important of the discussions of the Conference — a discussion upon a proposal, submitted by Mr Rentier, a member of the Marlborough Land Board, expressing the opinion that " the principle should be affirmed that not another acre of Crown lands should hereafter be parted with." This motion was negatived after an interesting debate, and no summary of the proceedings of the Conference can be considered to be at all complete which does not

show that the views held by the land " reformers " were thus rejected. Mr Reiiner was forced to admit that persons occupying land under the ieasehold tenure suffered the disadvantage that they experienced a- difficulty in obtaining advances upon the security they had to offer, but he maintained that, notwithstanding this, the Crown tenants were not all in favour of the freehold. " There were some, of course," he said, "who were strongly Conservative — they had obtained the advantages that the liberal land laws and Liberal administration, had given, and yet they were ungrateful." This is a sample of oratory that migjit not be out of place at a meeting of the Liberal and Labour Federation or at a party caucus, but it is hardly what might have been expected at a, conference

convened to consider how, in the interests of the colony and wholly independently of party consideration?, the system upon which the Crown lands arc settled may be improved. It may fittingly be coupled with a remark from another Marlborough repressntative, Mr Reader, who declared it to be the duty of the Conference, "as a small branch of the Government, to support the Government in its land policy " ! Mr Reese, a member of the "Wellington Board, who seconded Mr Renner's motion, was guilty of no such fatuity as to suo-o-e'st that the sale of Crown lands should be stopped because it was assumed that the Government's policy was to dispose of the colony's estate upon the leasehold system only, but his main argument was one that cuts quite as strongly against the proposal he supported as it does in favour of it. The land '" reformers,'' v/lio would have the State decline to sell another foot of land, base their whole case upon the doctrine that the unearned increment belongs to the State and not to the individual. Mr Reese devoted himself at the Land Conference, however, to showing that the Crown tenant enjoys the unearned increment of his land and that there is consequently no temptation to him to secm-e the freehold of the property. A passage from Mr Reese's speech may fittingly be quoted : " The increment upon the lease in perpetuity was as real and substantial as it was iipon freehold. In his own district there was a man who had received £17 per acre for

his interest on a 100-acre section. Some people would not believe that. Many people believed that the increment upon the land accrued to the State. It did nothing of the kind." The soundness of this view should be quite apparent. But there are various reasons why the average settler would prefer a freehold to a leasehold. There is the sentiment in favour of the possession of a piece of land which will be a man's own and which he may bequeath to his children after him ; there is the knowledge that he is unable with a leasehold tenure to secure advantageously the advances he may require and that, the lending department of the Government itself looks with disfavour upon the security of a leasehold ; there is the fear that the State may at some time or other seek to break the terms of its bargain with leaseholders by introducing the principle of revaluation ; and there are other reasons. And the effect of these influences upon the minds of

intending settlers is clearly shown by a return laid by the Minister of Lands before the Conference showing the preference of tenure of lands selected on the optional system for a period of 12 years. From this it appeared that out of a total of 10,252 selectors nearly two-thirds had chosen tenures under which the land might ultimately, if not immediately, be acquired by them. The number of cash buyers was 1837 and the number who selected their land on the occupation system that confers the right of purchase was 4886, while 3529 took up sections under the lease in perpetuity system, which is admittedly valuable, and should be retained, because ifc assists very many people on to the land who could not otherwise hope to get there. And his knowledge of the preference for the systems that admit of the acquisition of their land by the selectors led the Minister to say that he did not approve of Mr Renner's motion. He guardedly declared that he "was not sure " whether the freehold should be granted to those who had taken up land on lease in the past : "the bargains of the past should, he thought, be fairly and honourably abided by." Mr Duncan went on to say, however, that, " if the representatives of the people should decide that these men should be allowed to acquire the freehold, it should be borne in mind that . . . the tenant had four or five times the interest in the land that the Government had — his improvements were four or five times the value of the first interest of the Government in the land." Unfortunately the Conference seemed to evade as far as possible the question of whether such an amendment of the land laws is not desirable as would permit a Crown tenant to convert his leasehold into a freehold. And it is certainly to be regretted that the summary of the conclusions adopted, by the Coufoi-

enca docs not show what its lnind was on this important subject.