Our First Half-Century: A Review of Queensland Progress Based Upon Official Information

by Queensland

During the first decade several Land Acts, amending the Acts of 1860, were passed; but by the advent of the year 1867 it was found that the facilities offered for settlement were inadequate, and that new methods, especially in the direction of mixed farming adapted to the country and climate, and demanding holdings of increased area, were indispensable if there was to be close settlement on a more extensive scale than that contemplated by the pastoralist. Among the members of the Assembly in 1867-8 was Mr. Archibald Archer, of Gracemere, then member for Rockhampton, who earnestly voiced the popular contention that the upset price of £1 per acre was excessive, and that the holdings permitted to the settler by law were too restricted in area. In October, 1867, the Minister for Lands was Mr. E. W. Lamb, an old-time New South Wales land office official, and then a Peak Downs squatter. He introduced a Crown Lands Alienation Bill, which, after discussions showing its futility, was, on the motion of Mr. Macalister, then in opposition, referred to a Select Committee comprising the Minister and Messrs. Archer and Fitzgerald, the latter member for Kennedy. In the next session a new bill was introduced, giving effect to the recommendations of the Select Committee, which provided for the resumption of the halves of all runs within the Settled Districts, and for making available such resumed areas wherever required for settlement. The bill also provided for the opening of these areas to free selection before other than a feature survey had been made. This land was to be classified as (1) agricultural, in areas not exceeding 640 acres and at 15s. per acre; (2) first-class pastoral, in areas not exceeding 2,560 acres, at 10s. per acre; and (3) second-class pastoral, in areas not exceeding 7,680 acres, at 5s. per acre. The purchase was to be conditional upon actual occupation and improvement, the payment being spread over ten annual instalments, called rents, of 1s. 6d., 1s., and 6d. per acre respectively. Provision was also made for homestead selections not to exceed 80 acres of agricultural land or 160 acres of pastoral land, at a yearly rental for five years of 9d. an acre in the case of agricultural land and 6d. an acre for pastoral country. This measure, having become law, caused a tremendous rush for land, and in some cases, no doubt, too large areas were taken up, regarded from the standpoint of the public interest, the abuse partly arising from faulty classification by the Government Commissioners. By at least one of these officers it was held, for example, that land, no matter how accessible or good its quality, was only second-class pastoral if destitute of surface water. But, whatever abuses crept in, there can be no doubt that the Act of 1868 was the first legislation to place the people on the land in areas of such extent, of such quality, and at such prices as were then deemed requisite for successful occupation. Many of the most prosperous farmers of to-day, or their parents, settled under the 1868 Act, and now form most valuable members of the community.

In 1869 the Pastoral Leases Act was passed by the Lilley Government, and gave the lessees in the unsettled districts a better tenure than they had before enjoyed—21 years in respect of new country and renewed leases, and 14 years in the case of existing leases, with septennial automatic reappraisements of rent in all instances. The Liberal members of the Assembly assented to a pre-emptive purchase clause in this Act by which a lessee was empowered to purchase on his run without competition an area of 2,560 acres, containing permanent improvements made by him, at the price of 10s. per acre. But it was only discovered by many members after the Act had become law that a run might mean a block of 25 square miles, and that a lessee with a dozen blocks could secure strategic freeholds in as many different parts of his holding. However, the provision remained unaltered until in 1884 the Minister for Lands in the Griffith Ministry (Mr. Charles Boydell Dutton) refused to sanction further purchases of the kind, and during the same year endeavoured to sweep away the privilege by new legislation. Parliament, however, refused to repeal the provision, and would only consent to withhold the privilege of pre-emption in respect of leases acquired after the passage of the Land Act of 1884. Altogether 363 pre-emptive selections in respect of as many runs were made. By the Act of 1868 the pastoral lessees in the settled districts had also been granted ten years' leases for the unresumed halves of their runs; but in both cases the Minister was empowered to resume part of any run on giving six months' notice.

The Homestead Areas Act of 1872 provided for the setting apart of special areas as "homestead areas," to be exclusively settled as homestead selections, or selections taken up by virtue of land orders issued under the Immigration Act of 1869. A departure from the generally accepted principle of "homestead" settlement—that the land is granted at a nominal price in consideration of the selector personally residing on it—was made in providing for increased areas up to 320 acres at conditional purchase prices. This anomaly was corrected by the Act of 1876, which styled such larger homesteads "Conditional purchases in homestead areas."

In 1876 Mr. Douglas, as Mr. Thorn's Minister for Lands, introduced an amending and consolidating Land Bill, repealing all existing alienation Acts. Extended powers were given to Land Commissioners to expedite settlement. Monthly Commissioners' Courts were provided for, but no decision of a Commissioner's Court, except in case of certificates of performance of conditions, was to be final until confirmed by the Minister. The most noteworthy provision reduced the maximum area that one person might select. The area conditionally selectable by one person was made not less than 40 acres nor more than 5,120 acres. The Act declared all leased land reverting to the Crown on the Darling Downs to be homestead areas, and empowered the Government to establish such areas elsewhere. Within these areas conditional purchase selections were restricted to 1,280 acres and homesteads to 80 acres. Personal and continuous residence by the selector was made compulsory, and, before the fee-simple could be acquired, permanent improvements to the value of 10s. per acre were required to be made. A homestead was protected against claims for debt. A Settled Districts Pastoral Leases Bill also became law this year, providing that on the expiration of the ten years' leases then held runs should be offered at auction on a five years' lease at a rental of not less than £2 per square mile, an outgoing lessee being allowed six months' grace in which to remove his stock. In 1882 the Act of 1876 was amended so as to abolish the sale of runs by auction unless when there was no application for re-lease by the existing lessee, and lessees under the Act of 1876 were given the right to an extension of their leases for a period of ten years instead of five years. The rent, however, was to be subject to appraisement.

The next great land measure was the Griffith-Dutton Act of 1884. Its main features were the abolition of the pre-emptive rights of pastoral lessees; the creation of a Land Board consisting of two members—an independent tribunal acting like Judges of the Supreme Court, and, like the Judges, holding office during good behaviour; and the introduction of the leasehold tenure in connection with grazing and agricultural farms. The object of the Government was to bring about close settlement. As it was recognised that it was not feasible at that time to devote the lands of Western Queensland to agriculture, provision was made for the gradual substitution of a smaller class of graziers for the pastoral lessees with their many hundreds of square miles of territory. Accordingly inducements, by way of fixity of tenure and compensation for improvements, were offered to pastoral tenants to surrender their existing leases and bring their holdings under the Act. The Crown was thereupon entitled to resume one-half, one-third, or one-fourth of such holdings, the proportion varying inversely with the length of time the leases had to run. These resumed areas were then divided into smaller holdings called "grazing farms," the maximum area being 20,000 acres, which were to be opened to selection on a thirty years' lease, with periodical reappraisements of rent by the Land Board. It was believed that the lessees of these smaller holdings would so improve the country that its carrying capacity would be greatly increased, and the Crown would derive a larger revenue from its pastoral lands, whilst at the expiration of the leases agricultural settlement might be possible. The success of the grazing farm system has amply justified the expectations of the framers of the Act. The leasehold principle was also applied to agricultural farms, the maximum area of which was fixed at 1,280 acres, with a fifty years' tenure, but the selector was given the right to acquire a freehold after ten years' (later reduced to five years) personal occupation. Although dropping the name of "homestead," the Act maintained the homestead principle by providing for the freeholding of agricultural farms not exceeding 160 acres in area at 2s. 6d. per acre after five years' personal residence by the selector. The Act, which practically superseded the Pastoral Leases Act of 1869, continued the right of pastoral lessees to depasture their stock on the resumed areas until they were required for closer settlement. It also repealed existing alienation Acts, and provided for all the contingencies which might be expected to arise. Among the repealed Acts were two which had given rise to much party contention in previous Parliaments—the Western Railway Act and the Railway Reserves Act, to which allusion is made in the parts of this work dealing with "Public Finance" and "Fifty Years of Legislation."

SURPRISE CREEK FALLS, CAIRNS RAILWAY

Amending Acts were passed in 1885, 1886, 1889, 1891, 1892, 1894, and 1895, but these do not call for mention except to say that the Act of 1891 introduced a new mode of selection called "unconditional," providing for selections up to 1,280 acres at prices one-third greater than those for agricultural farms, and payable in twenty annual instalments.

In 1890 an Act was passed providing for a five years' extension of leases held under the 1869 Act and not affected by the Act of 1884. In 1892 an Act (extended in 1894, 1895, 1897, and 1898) was passed giving a seven years' extension of term to pastoral lessees, and an extension of five years (afterwards increased to seven years) to the lessees of grazing farms selected before the introduction of the bill and situated in the southern part of the State, who should enclose their holdings with rabbit-proof fences.

In 1893 the Co-operative Communities Land Settlement Act was passed at a time of stress, with a view to enabling men of good character but without capital to settle on the land with the aid of Government advances. In all, twelve "self-governing communities" were formed with a total adult male membership of 485. In no case did the venture prove successful, and by an amending Act passed in 1895 the several communities were dissolved, the members thereof were absolved from all liability to the Government for advances made, and the land and assets were suitably apportioned among the remaining members of the dissolved groups, to the number of 88. They were assigned an area aggregating 13,491 acres to be held on a five years' tenure at a rental of ¾d. per acre per annum, subject to a condition of personal residence and to the purchase of the land during the fifth year at 2s. 6d. an acre. Only three-fourths of these 88 settlers brought their selections to freehold, and the last transaction was not closed till ten years had elapsed, instead of five, from the dissolution of the groups. Consequent on another period of depression, Parliament in 1905 authorised another experiment by way of Government assistance to would-be settlers without means, but the communal element is not so prominent in the new measure, and the "self-government" principle is excluded. Only one settlement has been formed under the Act of 1905, and it is under Government control. While holding out some promises of success, these are not so tangible as to lead to further ventures of the sort. Indeed, the need for them has disappeared with the return of prosperity.