MOTUEKA NATIVE TRUST LANDS.

Colonist, Volume LVI, Issue 13420, 18 March 1914, Page 3

MOTUEKA NATIVE TRUST LANDS.

<To the Editor of "Th& Colonist.")

Sir,—You report in Tuesday's issue that a deputation from the leasehold- j ers of the Native trust lands at Motueka waited on the Premier re_ the demand by the landlord that 5 per cent, should be paid on the unimproved value as rent, and the statement was made by the deputation that the increase in value of the land had been created entirely by the tenant and the expenditure of public money. The landlord had done nothing to improve the value of the land, and it was contended that he was not justly entitled to the rent on the unearned increment. A river board was urgently required in the district, but the tenants were against further taxing themselves for the landlords' benefit. And in reply the Premier stated that he thought the case submitted was an excellent argument for the freehold tenure. He entirely sympathised with the complaint put forward and if he could introduce any legislation to safeguard the interests of the tenants he would be pleased to do so. Now/ Sir, this is a most important matter in many ways. First of all tlie demand of the landlords, the Native owners, through their agent the Public Trustee is exactly the demand made -by all private landlords and all the arguments against the payment of 5 per cent, apply equally as well against the demands of private landlords, and any legislation passed in connection with, this matter to Ije absolutely just must apply all round on leasehold land, whether held from the State, the Natives, public endowments, and pri-vately-owned land. If not, why not? But it can be said that the State is satisfied* with 4 per cent, as rent from Crown land, therefore, why should the Native trust receive more than 4 per cent? The increase in the unimproved value of the land of tho Dominion in a little over 20 years \s L'l 40.000,000, nnrl during that period the Stale in- !• J.Ledncss to the inone>-lender in- < .seel by £40,000,000, and lessees of ■'c and oilier laiuK who periodically

j to pay interest on tho "unearned i ~-i'cmoft'!' should see in it that the freeholders do their J\iwo imd vole solid for an increase of taxation on this unearned increment, thus making everyone who gets ,i share of those public gifts pay for ihis something he gets for nothing, and in doing this enable the Government- to substantially reduce Customs duties, transport charges, etc., to compensate for the

payments made on this account by both leaseholders in rent and freeholders by tore. Jf the Government adopt * any other method of dealing with the Question they will revive -the subject of a Fair Rent Bill—there is no alternative^ Every politician from the Premier down is telling us that the land question is the most important of all questions. It is, and a chronic question, and will never bo settled until it is settled right, and Mr. Massey's statement made with pride that he has i given the option of the fee simple to 1 20,000 tenants does not prove that he is any nearer to the solution, and if he thinks the case of the Native tenants is a good argument for the freehold, w^iat about college, edu-1 cation board, hospital and national endowment tenants ? He often talks of every man being his own landlord. He is buying estates to-day at top prices. A fine thing for the sellers who aro enabled to unload oh to the State befoae the -advent of a Government of «Che-people-by".the people who will take for the people that value which the people themselves create. Sir Joseph Ward has given us a forecast of his policy which will contain a proposal to tax community-created values. The pity is that he did not do this right through the period his Government borrowed the £40,000,000, and the land values rose more than three times that amount. May the future bring us more politics arid less piffle. • I am, etc., ■:•.■■■ W. J. MOFFATT.