THE LAND LAWS.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 46, Issue 14239, 20 October 1920, Page 6

THE LAND LAWS.

FREEHOLD v. LEASEHOLD. (By Telegraph —Press Association.) WELLINGTON, Tuesday. _ In the House of Representatives this afternoon, the Land Laws Amendment Bill was reported from the Lands Committee, with amendments. Mr G. Witty, speaking to the report, said the Government would have effected a great saving in paper if they had brought down a Bill of one clause, ojviim everybody the freehold who desired°it. At one time, he said, the Crown tenants were a perfectly satisfied body of people, but the lremior and bis followers came along, and, m order to net into power, they promised the freehold to Crown leaseholders at the original price. The Government was evidently determined- to destroy ovew leasehold in the Dominion. That was "what this Bill meant, if it meant anything. Not only had the Government given away the people s patrimony, but they had given their freeholders greater concessions than they had ..-ivcii auv other section of the community. ‘They had given the wheat,-i-rowers concessions. They complained when other people refused to work, but when the wheat-growers refused to I.row wheat, they gave them a subsidy at the expense of the public. As a matter of fact, the country had lost millions over the Government’s wheat deals, all to placate people who were put on their feet by the Liberal laity but who, as soon as they were promised the freehold, turned rigli round and supported those who had previously been their opponents. He criticised 'the proposal to sell the national endowments and to invest the money m prospects which might not be of the cast benefit to the Dominion. It- would have been much more manly if the Government had come down with a straightout proposal to sell the national endowments at oucc, than to whittle them away year by year, as was now being done. These endoments were set aside to aid education, pensions, and the aged and needy, but now they were to be parted with for a song. He criticised the butter subsidy, contending that the price of butter affected the price of land. If there had been no subsidy, the price of laud would have fallen, and the orgie of speculation -now going on would have ceased. He had no objection to the clauses in the Bill benefiting the soldiers. What he did object to was the sale of endowments which the Premier had led them to believe a tew days ago were not to be sold. It was a sad day for the country when we gave away what belonged to the people. I arliament was the guardian of the people’s rights, but instead of guarding the people’s heritage they were robbing them of it. • „ Mr 0. W. Forbes said that the offer of the freehold to the Crown tenants was one of the greatest political bribes ever put before a people. On that the Government came into power, and when in power they had dealt out big things in that way to their friends Now they were cleaning up the crumbs. It was no use complaining, because the Government was a freehold Government, and could do as it liked. But he did complain at this method of dealing with the holders of -small grazing runs, who, under the Act of 1892, had the right of a perpetual renewal of their leases at an increased rental of 21 per cent. That riffht had been confirmed by the Privy Council, but the Government had passed legislation in 1918, getting behind the terms of these leaseholds. -That was a breach of faith. A contract had been made, and the Government should stand by its bargain. - The Premier said there had been an error in drafting the Act of 1892 Mr Forbes, continuing, said that the people who took up these lands had a right to suppose that the words of the Act meant what they said. But after the people took on the land they wore told that the bargain made with them was not to be respected. This, he thought, was most unfair. The Minister for Lands said that when the leases fell due, the Department was of the opinion that the renewals were to be dealt with in the usual way. The renevvals were granted at four per cent until one particular lessee, who was a lawyer, contended that he had a right of renewal at per cent. The Court had upheld that lessee and the Government had given him everything he had won. The original lease at 2 A per cent rental had been for the purpose of encouraging people to take up difficult lands. But it had never been intended to stand for all time. The public good was paramount, but of course compensation should be faced where it was due. He would accept any suggestion for making certain Fiat leaseholders got the benefit of all their interests in any land. Dealing with the Bill generally, he said lie had no quarrel with the leaseholders for standing up for their principles. But the predominant desire for the freehold must be acceded to. “This is not a question of leasehold versus freehold. It is a question of the national honour,” said Mr L. M. Isitt. “I say deliberately that there is only one word with w'hich to describe this transaction, and that is ' repudiation’.” If the Government was going hack on these leases, why should it not tear up the leases-in-perpetuity? It was one thing to amend legislation in regard to them, and another to pass retrospective legislation, affecting the rights of people who had been upheld in the Courts. The Premier: “I have always been ot opinion that the 21 per cent applied to the first term, and after that it was to be four per cent.” Mr Isitt replied that it was not a question of the intention. What mattered was wliat the Act of 1892 said. Mr A. D. McLeod maintained that the Government was taking up a mistaken attitude. He said the contract should be observed. Mr Ngata pointed out that the 1918 Act had gone through in a hurry. It had been introduced in a hurry. It had been introduced on a Saturday and put through all its stages on tho following Monday. Members interested —Sir Jas. Carroll, the late Hon. Mr Macdonald, and himself —had all been unavoidably absent. Ho had a suspicion that the 1918 clause was the result of the Crown Law Office not taking its beating like sportsmen. . The roport was tabled without lurther discussion.