LAND SETTLEMENT QUESTION

Otago Witness, Issue 3005, 18 October 1911, Page 21

LAND SETTLEMENT QUESTION

PURCHASE OF PRIVATE ESTATES. i AMENDMENT oFtHE LAW PROPOSED. (Fbom Ouh Own Correspondent.) WELLINGTON, "October 10. In the House, this afternoon Mr Dillon asked if the Government would acquire for closer settlement Mr R. D. D M'Lean's Maraekakaho Estate. The qnes tion led to a general statement by jb.6 Prime Minister in regard to land purchase Sir Joseph Ward said he could, not give an offhand answer to the question, because the Land Purchase Board would have to inquire into the matter and see if the price was such that it could be profitably worked by those who. would be likely to take it up. If a syndicate in the district was prepared to pay more than the land was worth, the Government would not take it at such a price. Such a thing had been done in Marlborough, and the syndicate had offered the land to the Government at many thousands of pounds less than it had purchased the land for, but the Government would not buy it. In the matter of the Hawke's Bay district, or any other district whe.re. land was offered at a fair price., the Government would obtain it, and it proposed to ask the House this session to give effect to an altera tion in the law whereby land could be obtained without having the country swindled out of enormous prices. An effort wa's being made on the part of large landowners. to obtain a price for their lands from the country altogether in excess of the value of the lands. The Government had tried different ways, and each time it had been defeated. Then it adopted the system of valuation by the owners, but the latter raised their values to such an extent that even the rates they had to pay became so burdensome that the Government had to alter the law to relieve them of the unfair payment of rates beyond the values of those lands. The proposed new system would enable the Government to acquire lands at a fair value, and to take them where necessary compulsorily. It would pass that law this session, no matter how long it took to do it.

Mr Ross: For both Maori and European lands?

/ Sir Joseph Ward: Yes; I'll ask the House to adopt it generally. Sir Joseph Ward added that the' action he proposed to take would prevent those unfair statements that were being made as to the Government's want of sinoerity. If Mr M'Lean would offer his land at a price that the Land Purchase Board would agree to, the Government would take it, but it would not pay Mr M'Lean, or any other person, £4 or £5 or £lO an acre more than the land was worth, even under the Compensation Court. To the knowledge of members of that House they had in some cases to give very much beyond the value of the land.

Mr Fraser: In how many ? Sir Joseph Ward: There are several instances. ~',

Mi* Fraser: In the majority of cases it is the other way. Sir Joseph Ward: We have never had land at a price at which the owner could have sold it to a private individual. Mr Massey : Oh, nonsense. Sir Joseph Ward said the very fact that the Government was operating put up the .price of land. The Government had purchased over £5,000,000 worth of land, but the mere fact of it being a large operator made it difficult to go on acquiring land in the same way as it could obtain it for the first six or seven years after the system was in operation. Even the Leader of the Opposition had stated that he would advise his friends to ask three times the value of their land. Mr Massey (emphatically): That statement is not correct. Sir Joseph Ward said the hon. member had made the statement at one of the committee meetings. Mr Massey : Nothing of the sort. What I said —and I will repeat it on any platform in New Zealand —was tint if the Government came to me and demanded to purefcsse Bty iassd eompuisoriiy I wcw&d

demand three times its value in order to enable me to retain my home. Mr Fowlds said Mr Massey had cut the statement referred to out of the report of the committee. Mr Massey said he had not cut the (statement out of the evidence. As a matter of fact it was not evidence at all; it was merely an interjection. In a personal explanation Mr Massey said that his statement was preceded by-a reference to a sentimental value attaching to land. He mentioned hie own farm, and said that if the Government proposed to take it compulsorily and he believed he could save it by such an expedient he would ask three times its value. He was strongly of opinion that the system of determining the value of land by arbitration was much better than the present one, which had superseded it by the act of 1907. Mr' Massey expressed his doubts regarding the foundation of the complaints by the Government that land was not available for purchase for settlement at reasonable prices. He suggested that the Minister of Lands should table a return showing the estates and the prices asked which had been offered to the Government during the past two years. -He ridiculed the statement that half a million pounds' worth of land could not be purchased at a fair price, and guaranteed u aat he could in one year purchase 2,000,000 worth at prices that would enable the settlers to make a fair living. Mr Brown : Is this a personal explanation ?

Mr Massey : You do not like it. I have listened to the Prime Minister for a quarter of an hour, and now I am putting the other side of the question. Land can be purchased by the State at the present time at valuations that will enable settlers to make a -fair living from it.

Mr G. Witty asked why Mr Massey had cut the statement out of his evidence as it appeared when printed. Mr Massey denied that he had done so. The statement was made when the committee was deliberating, and was "not given in evidence at all. The Prime Minister asked whether M.r Massey proposed to spend the whole of the £2,000,000 in one locality. Mr Massey : Certainly not.

The Prime Minister said that in that case Mr Massey must be carried off his feet by his imagination if he believed that so much land was available for settlement at a fair price. The Government, had never purchased an estate at the price at which it was offered by the owners.

Mr Hardy: Yes, you did. Mr Massey : Will you give us a list of the estates offered ? ...

The Prime Minister : I am prepared to consider the request. Thre are probably some people who would not like their business made public. Members of the Opposition endeavoured to ascertain the nature of the transaction in connection with the transfer of 1385 acres of Crown land at North Bank, Marlborough, for settlement purposes. They asked whether the price of the.estate !■ 554) had been paid into the Consolidated Fund. ~ . -

The Prime Minister : The money was paid into the Land for Settlement"" Fund in the ordinary, way. Mr Fisher : Into the fund.

The Prime Minister : If notice is given of the question I shall be glad to give the information desired.

CANTERBURY LEASEHOLDERS DISSATISFIED. MR LAURENSON ADVOCATES FREEHOLD. SOME OPPOSITION COMMENTS. CFbom Our Own Correspondent.) WELLINGTON, October 13. The Lands Committee to-day reported on the petition of the Roimata settlers, near Christ'church, who asked to obtain the freehold of the sections they had leased under the lands for settlement scheme some 14 years ago. The committee recommended that the Government find a way out by permitting the settlers to release part of their sections. Mr Laurenson said the petitioners were asking for the freehold of the land, which had been bought by the Government at £6O an acre and leased in one, two, three, and four-acre blocks. The population in the vicinity had grown, and the land was now worth £3OO per acre. The settlers were paying a rental of £8 and £8 10s per block, but owing to the rating on unimproved values their rates were £lO and £l2 per block. That position was a peculiar hardship. The leases allowed no provision for valuation for improvements nor for Cutting up. The lessees now asked for the freehold, not at the original value, but at half the increased value, and he thought that this was a most, proper and reasonable request. Mr Dillon, a Government supporter, said he was downright pleased to hear the remarks of the hon. member for Lyttelton.—(Laughtei*.) He was pleased to hear that he was in favour of the freehold.—(Oppositon " Hear, hear.") He had no doubt- that like the member for Avon the member for Lyttelton would be a freeholder altogether before very long. Mr Pearce said this was a good illustration of the fallacy of the leasehold and of rating on unimproved values. They could not get a better illustration than had been given by the member for Lyttelton. The back-blocks settler was not allowed full value for his labour and his improvements, so that these men, if they got their land at half its present value would be getting more than the backblocks settler if the latter got his section at the original value. Ha (Mr Pearce) quite agreed that the petitioners should get the freehold, but he was surprised that the member for Lyttelton should be the one to advocate it after the sentiments he had been expressing for years past. No doubt many others sitting beside him would come round before long. Ms Fowkb asfci tbe lana had increased

in value owing to industry and the population in the neighbourhood, and. if the people were to reap some e& that increase in value the only way they could do it was by rating on unimprova values. It was absolute rubbish to Gay that the back-blocks settlers were only getting half the value for their improvements. Mr Lang said it was amusing to hear Mr Laurenson advocating the freehold at half the increased value. Surely if it was wrong to steal a loaf it was wrong also to steal half a loaf. He noted also the injurious effect of rating on unimproved value 'in the suburbs. The effect of the system had been that in Wellington where houses once stood in open spaces three houses now stood.

Mr Laurenson stated in a general explanation that he had always favoured giving the tenants of land leased for 999 years the right to sell on terms reasonable to the State.

Mr Ell admitted that some subdivisions had been" made in Hobson street, Wellington/ 'since'' the adoption of rating on unimproved values, but he denied that the general effect had been to compel subdivision. Large cities in the Old Country where this system was not in operation were, more crowded than any others in the world. Overcrowding might take place under any system. If the local bodies desired to stop it they should resort to by-laws and set up a limit. Mr Lang : Then the poor man would not get a house at all. Mr Duncan said the discussion had shown how little many of the members who had spoken had known what they were talking about. Most of the sections affected were taken up as market gardens, and with the development of the district the taxes had grown to be more than double the rent.