the growing costs of wool production 
must give rise to some anxiety. The 
problem presented by them is, how- 
ever, only a part, though a very im- 
portant part, of the general problem 
of high costs of production which we 
have discussed in our main report 
(Part II hereof). 
5. We are primarily concerned here 
with the question of certain measures 
which might be taken to improve the 
position of the industry in the matter 
of security of land tenure and of the 
size of the area which one individual 
partnership or company is allowed to 
acquire. Our impressions have been 
gathered mainly in Queensland, but 
we think that what is true of that 
State in regard to the pastoral in- 
dustry is true generally mutatis 
mutandis elsewhere. ] 
6. In respect of both the points to 
which we have referred, matters have 
been greatly improved in Queensland 
from the point of view of the wool 
grower within the last two years, as 
the result of the report from which 
we have quoted and of the subsequent 
action of the Land Administration 
Board. Previous Queensland Govern- 
ments seem to have set themselves to 
oreak up the large pastoral estates 
and almost to have exposed themselves 
to the charge of adopting a hostile 
attitude towards them. To-day things 
are better, since a man can get, in the 
remoter districts, a pastoral lease for 
40 years, with a liability to the re- 
appraisement of the unimproved 
value of his land, and consequently to 
an increase of rent, at the end of the 
twentieth year, and can apply at the 
end of the thirtieth vear for a re- 
newal of his lease so that he may know 
ten years before his lease comes to an 
end whether he will be allowed to con- 
tinue to rent his holding or a part of 
it, and, if so, what part and at what 
rent, on the expiry of his current 
lease. Similarly with grazing leases: 
in the less remote areas a man can get 
a 28 years’ lease liable to reappraise- 
ment every seven years and, if he 
likes, apply for renewal at the end of 
the twenty-first year; but the Govern- 
ment seems to be deeply wedded to the 
principle of terminable leases at rents 
which are admittedly low, and to be 
averse from freehold. The idea of 
sapturing ‘‘ unearned increment ’’ for 
the State is much in its mind. 
7. It seems to us that, from the 
ooint of view of security of tenure, 
and consequently of the encourage- 
ment of capital for investment in the 
development of lands which, at pre- 
sent, and for as far in the future as it 
is worth while to look, are only suit- 
ible for cattle or sheep raising on an 
sxtensive scale, there is much to be 
said for giving a tenant the option to 
sonvert his lease into a freehold after, 
say, ten years from the commencement 
>f his lease, conditionally on his 
raving carried out stocking and other 
mprovements to the satisfaction of 
she Government, at a price fixed at 
the commencement of his lease. The 
orice should be fixed on the fair profit- 
sarning capacity of the land over a 
erm of average years given reasonably 
Afcient management. This, after all, 
5s all that the Government has got to 
sell. It ought not to expect more, 
ind is not likely in the long run to be 
ible to get more. 
8. Instances came under our notice 
»f the drawbacks to the present system 
>f terminable leaseholds. We were 
:old of lessees of large areas who, 
luring the last years of their leases, 
efrained from making the improve- 
nents necessary to enable full economic 
1se to be made of the land, and for 
which they had ample capital, because 
»f their uncertainty as to what their 
yosition would be at the end of their 
ease. We have heard on good 
wuthority that there have even been 
2 good many cases of people on whose 
and prickly pear was spreading 
during the last few years of a lease 
not troubling to deal with it. It was 
not worth their while as their leases 
were coming to an end. 
9. It would, of course, be a corollary 
sf the acceptance of the principle of 
‘reehold that taxation applying to 
freehold land only, and not to lease- 
10ld, should be abandoned; or, if it 
was thought necessary specially to tax 
and at all as against any other form 
of property, that the burden of taxa- 
tion should be distributed equitably as 
petween freehold and leasehold. If 
here is some insuperable objection to