Progress of the Land Bill.

Patea Mail, 10 July 1882, Page 3

Progress of the Land Bill.

RELIEF OF D. P. HOLDERS.

TENANTRY UNDER THE CROWN

Mr Rollestou moved the second reading of the Land Act Amendment Bill on Frida}’, pointing out the great importance of the land question all the world over, but dealing special I}' with his practical experience of the lands of this colony. He reviewed past legislation on the subject, and was highly complimentary tc Mr Donald Reid on his efforts to liberalise the land laws of the colony. He quoted from the Crown Lands Department report to show the results of the present law on the subject of deferred payment, and maintained the necessity for continuing the system under improved regulations. The question was as between establishing a tenantry of the money-lender or a tenantry of the Crown. The present Bill was to do the latter, and to stop the abuses incidental to the former, which had grown up under the present law. If agricultural settlement on goldfields was to go on, a power such as was proposed in the Bill must be given to lease land with power of resumption for mining purposes when required, and also the necessity for provision as to riparian rights. Practical experience showed this. The mining industry was the main one in many parts of the colony, and the Bill proposed to give due protection to it. Under the Bill any man who knew how to occupy land profitably could obtain and settle on it, without the assistance of the moneylender. He dwelt on the necessity for all endowment reserves being administered by the Lands Department, instead of by a variety of irresponsible bodies. With regard to the relief of deferred-payment settlers, he objected to individuals having to come before a court and plead poverty for a relief. What the Bill proposed was to offer all an exchange of tenure, which they could accept with advantage to themselves and without disadvantage to the State. He defended the policy of nominated Waste Lands Boards, and in reference to the case of Poverty Bay, proposed to provide for periodical sittings of a Waste Lands Board there, instead of making a separate district. He earnestly trusted that the Bill would be passed.

Mr J. Buchanan believed Mr Rolleston was honestly desirous of well administer ing the lands of the colony. He, however, was prepared to. go far beyond Mr Rolleston, and give every settler who would occupy the land a fair section of it at a merely nominal price. The price was as nothing compared with the settlement of the land. He would give the land at a cost of registration and survey only, giving no power of mortgage, and compelling occupation. When the Bill came before the Waste Lands Committee he would endeavor to amend it in this direction.

Mr Kelly spoke generally in support of the Bill.

Sir George Grey blamed the Government for having forced .deferred-pajunent settlers to pay exorbitant rates at auction by not opening up enough land to meet the demand. To now abandon the system of selling freeholds would be to give additional and unfair advantages to those who had already acquired large freehold estates by improper means. The leasehold provisions were impracticable, and the conditions proposed to be imposed on on tenants were harsh and unconstitutional. The Bill would be an injustice to the natives, and its whole tendency was to inflict injury on them. He would support the second reading, but in committee would try to wake up the Government to the necessity for a more liberal measure. The pastoral lands should be thrown open on deferred payments. They should look for revenue not to the land sales, but to a land tax. Mr M. W. Green supported the Bill generally at considerable length. Mr Bathgate warmly congratulated Mr Rolleston on the Bill, and thought the people would be quite satisfied with leaseholds on reasonable terms instead of freeholds. On the motion.of Mr Sutton the debate was adjourned.