THE FREEHOLD TENURE.

Waipa Post, Volume VI, Issue 257, 21 October 1913, Page 2

THE FREEHOLD TENURE.

WHEN the Land Laws Amendment Bill was before the House early this month, the optional tenure, giving Crown tenants of lease-in-perpetuity lands the right to acquire the fee simple of their holdings, was strongly advocated by Mr J. A. Young,M.P.(Waikato). After commenting upon the leasehold—which he claimed to be essential to settlement as a stepping stone, although not in the interests of good settlement and useful occupation of rural land in the long run —Mr Young went on to refute statements made throughout the country that the new Land Laws forced the lease-in-perpetuity tenants to acquire the freehold. “ The Bill provides nothing of the sort,”

said Mr Young, “it gives the option to the holder to convert his leasehold into a freehold. In the matter of State leases, the tenant on agricultural lantl finds that if he has been industrious and has increased the productivity of his land lie is revalued for rent on his own industry and, that being so, the hard-working man is not encouraged to apply his best intelligence to the working of his holding. A bad tenant or a bad farmer is of no value to the State.. . . If we could arrive at the actual site value of rural lands without at the same time taking from the tenant some of his industry and time and money without charging him increased rent it would be a wise step to take and a good national policy to adopt. As compared with land situated nearer towns and cities, you cannot do that. Site values in town and suburban lands are always easily assessed ; as, even though neglected and covered with noxious weeds, the value is not affected. In the case of country lands, however, it you neglect to cultivate they at once begin to depreciate in value and there is a loss both to the individual and to the State. Drainage, cultivation, fertilizing, prices of produce and fiscal conditions all affect the unimproved value of rural lands, thus the leasehold farmer, the more industrious he has been, is assessed the more for increased rent to his personal detriment.” Without doubt there is much truth in Mr Young’s contention for the revaluation of leasehold lands for rent purposes is in favour of the careless or unscrupulous farmer, “it may be contended,” continued Mr Young, ‘‘ that his contentions did not apply to those lands for which the lease did not expire for one thousand years, but although Parliament has legislated and created the lease in perpetuity tenure, another Parliament may legislate and upset the existing leases,’or even go so far as to increase the rents unfairly. So far as provision for the landless man is concerned the leasehold is no solution of the problem. Present day tenants will doubtless want to take up the land for a further term, so that whether land be held on freehold or leasehold, provision will have to be made for landless men, and not only freeholds, but leaseholds will require to be subdivided, and the question of compensation will not be absent in either case.’’ “The freehold stands for independence and self-reliance, and certainly is worthy of a free people,” said Mr Young at the conclusion of his appeal in the House for the granting of the optional tenure.