THE LIBERAL LAND POLICY.

Otago Witness, Issue 3003, 4 October 1911, Page 5

THE LIBERAL LAND POLICY.

IS THE BALLOT ABUSED? CANTERBURY AT A STANDSTILL. (Fbom Ovv. Own Correspondent.) . WELLINGTON, September 27. In the House to-day Mr Forbes asked the Minister of Lands whether he would inquire into the truth of a statement made by a speaker at the Political Reform League's meeting in Christchurcb on Wednesday last, and if the statement was correct wbuid he .give instructions to the Land Board that in' future only landless men be admitted to the ballot* for land for settlement lands ?

The —-report runs :—" The speaker quoted from an advertisement in the Ash- _ burton Guardian in which the successful -applicant for the Douglas settlement homestead block offered at auction a 516 acre farm at Winslow, which reached £lO an-acre at auction, and was withdrawn at the owner's bid of £ll 5s an acre. Here the Government was leasing land to a man who owned a farm worth £5160."

Sir Joseph Ward replied that the statement that the Government was leasing land to a man who owned a farm worth £5160 was contrary to fact. The successful applicant for the I homestead section in the Douglas settlement was Miss Alice Ethel Hampton, who owned no other land, and who was landless 'at the time of the ballot. Her father : guaranteed to finance her, and informed the chairman of the Land Board that she was shortly to be married. She signed the declaration, and . satisfactorily answered all questions put to her by the, board. Although her father owned land it was subject to a mortgage. Mr Forbes said the answer to this question showed the sort of criticism which members on the Government side had to put up with from these Reform leagues. Instead.of facts, they gave, misrepresenta.tions and half-truths. The public would lose all faith in men who lent themselves to such tactics. Mr Forbes was proceeding to refer' .to "a gentleman named Jones, who was the paid organiser of another of these leagues,"" when he wai' rung down by the Speaker's bell. Mr Massey quoted' an' -advertisement in the AshburtOn Guardian which put quit* a different complexion upon the matter. Mr Forbes said he had . quoted the Lyttelton Times.

Mr Massey replied that, personally, ha did not place very much reliance- upon the Lyttelton Times. He quoted* from the advertisement of the sale Of Mr •Hampton's farm, which stated that, ax Mr John Hampton had drawn the'homestead block of the Douglas settlement ii was imperative that he should live on the, property. That statement *vas apEarently not quite correct, but, having een made in the advertisement, Mi Ackland was quite justified in dravf-tn* attention to it. It appeared'now thai the farm had been drawn by the mau'a daughter. That was not bona fide settlement as the pepple of this country understood it. According to the advertisement, Mr Ackland was.;absolutely right,., and aa a public man he 1 was justified in calling attention t<>'what seemed t.„ -o an abuse.

Mr Forbes,, by way. of personal explanation, again referred to the fact that it was the daughter who had drawn. the farm, and that the father had gone to live with her on it.

; Mr Dayey : -That n ,pnly :; makes the transaction worse. He advertised thai he had drawn it; and it was his daughter who did it." ' -i r ' Mr Tsitt said there was t, somewhat suspicious aspect about the case, and it seemed to him that in some cases a very questionable use was, being made of th< ballot provision. It did seem an extra* ordinary thing that the father of a young lady who had ffSJtified that she wa3 going to get married (mould make-a transaction ais though it were an individual one, and make a statement in an advertisement thai he himself had secured the land and theij go to live with his daughter, who had really drawn the section. The case was exceedingly suspicious. People obtained, land nnder these ballot? who had no right to obtain it. There were cases where whole families had obtained block aftef block of land. The Government should pass legislation to prevent the wife of < large landlord and the sons of wealthy land-owners from doing this unless thej Were prepared to conduct the manage* ment of such properties themselves o< entirely, independent and separate lines.

. Mr Laurenson referred to the aggrcgjw tion of large estates. He pointed out that the increase in population in Canter* bury during the paet five years was only 14,000, while in Auckland it was 53,000* The average size of the holdings in Auck* land was a little over 300 acres, but in Canterbury it was over 500 acres. In Canterbury the growth of the population was in the towns, not "in the country. Th« country population, which was the pitlf of the district, was practically stationary, He advocated a system of taxation that would prevent the aggregation of land when a man occupied over £20,000 wortlj of unimproved value. It was a calamity that a province founded by the pith of the British Isles—John Robert Godley and others—should within the first 50 years of its national life be practically stationary.