WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 1913. THE NEW LAND BILL.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 10870, 10 September 1913, Page 4

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 1913. THE NEW LAND BILL.

Mr Massoy's now Land Bill is satisfactory as far as it goes. Tho provision enabling people who are not on the land, but who wish to settle ultimately, to forego tho residence clause provided that they mako double the improvements at present specified, is a wise one. It will havo the effect of inducing ft greater employment of labour and a great improvement in a number of districts where progress and development is retarded by the hard-and-fast rulo hitherto observed. The provision enabling settlers in given districts to create a fund out of their payments on capital and interest account for the purposes of xoad construction is also an excellent one.- It will havo the effect of relieving Parliament of a great deal of sectional pressure and throw the onus upon the settlers'of controlling expenditure and obtaining the best value for tho money disbursed. The improvement in the pastoral lease system is an instalment of reform very much overdue. The regulations heretofore existing have acted as a positive detriment to settlement, inasmuch as the farmers have been handicapped by insecurity of tenure and deterred from making improvements because of a realisation that full compensation would not be awarded them at. the end of their leases. Once a pettier is ensured permanency of tenure*, and full credit for his improvements, his capacity as a producer will be stimulated, and that is the desideratum at which all land reformers should aim..

As to the granting of tho freehold of settlement lands, that is a question which will occasion heartburnings amongst the largo number of people who are convinced that it is not a right principle to use tho public credit for land purchase and make a present of the whole of tho unearned increment to the heirs and successors of the original lessees. However, a considerable section of the community is behind the Massey Government in its programme; and even staunch "leaseholders" like the Hon F. M. B. Fisher and Dr Nowman can under, our existing system of party government be expected to swallow the gilded pill. The clause in the Bill perpetuating the old principle of pledging the credit of tho community to the extent of £500,000 yearly to pension off some of Mr Massey's squatter friends in order that genuine producers may be put upon tho soil is, to our mind, regrettable in every way. Tin's system has and will continue to have the effect of putting up the price of land in ©very locality in which such purchases are made. Its effect is to enhance the value of all the surrounding holdings. This has been exemplified on innumerable occasions, particularly in the North Island. The result is that for each successive half-million of expenditure less land can be secured, while incoming settlers find' it more and more difficult to finance themselves.

The most important clause in the Bill is that which enables tho Crown to notify owners holding land out of full use to dispose of portions of it to the State or throw it into tho open market. This system has much to recommend it, but a great deal will depend on tho method of administration. It is quite possible that somo Governments will show considerable laxity in bringing this provision into effect. The large landed interests are very persistent and very influential behind the scenes, and their contributions to the party fighting funds and to the maintenance of party newspapers is always a factor to be counted with. Wo ourselves much prefer tho New South Wales Government's scheme of a graduated tax, under which owners holding landlocked areas out of full use are forced either to improve up to the full value or else get out. Wo hope some members of tho Opposition will test Parliament and public opinion with some amendments along these lines.