THE LAND QUESTION. FURTHER DEBATED BY THE HOUSE.

Evening Post, Volume LXX, Issue 58, 6 September 1905, Page 3

THE LAND QUESTION. FURTHER DEBATED BY THE HOUSE.

NATIVE LAND POLICY. INTERESTING SPEECHES. In the House yesterday afternoon Mr. Houston resumed the debate on the Premier's land proposals. He believed in Land Boards remaining as they are, and that they should be envpowered to use the local bodios for the purpose of gaining information. He complained that the special requirements of the North of Auckland had not had attention paid to them by tho Land Commission. He advocated the homestead system for his electorate ; people who took up land under that system knew that by their own efforts the land would become their own in a few years, and if the same reward was added to the leasehold system there would be many more contented settlers than at present. He' objected strongly to the ballot system, which he declared had been the means of driving many good would-be settlers out of the country. He was in favour of lessees in perpetuity being allowed to convert their leases into the tenure of occupation with right of purchase on condition that they paid the extra 1 per cent. Mr. Lawry opposed the amendment moved by tho Leader of the Opposition. He strongly objected to the leases in perpetuity already granted being altered to occupation with right of purchase, and contended that if any lessee wanted the freehold he should surrender the lease and pay tli3 full value of his holding. The Premier should have brought down his resolutions by direct legislation. Criticising the Premier's resolutions in detail, he applauded the proposal that the Crown tenants should be represented on Land Boards, but these representatives should be elected by the Crown tenants. The Government had no right to nominate to such important positions — not only on Land Boards, but also on Harbour and other Boards. Mr. Rutherford, after defending the action of the freehold advocates in voting for the setting up of the Land Commission, referred to the Opposition's charges against tho Premier of changing his ground, and asked why should not the Premier follow public opinion. Public opinion was prone to change. Personally he was a freeholder straight out. He was prepared to advocate the selling of every acre of Crown land in the colony, reserving those lands necessary for national parks, etc., and making safeguards for the restriction of areas. Tho land deteriorated ' under the leasehold system. He hoped the Government would not pass a. Land Bill this session, but he hoped that a Bill based on the information obtained' would be circulated. Sir Wm. Steward described the Government's action in not accepting the amendment as- a no-confidence motion as unique. He proceeded to say that it was not desirable to grant the freehold to all tenants under the Crown. Ninetenths of the Crown tenants were satisfied with their existing leases, and the remaining tenth would have been quite satisfied were it not that they were disturbed by fears of revaluation and the proposals of extremists. Mr. Major took exception to the Premier's methods of dealing with the quostion. 'He recognised that the Premier had a difficult task in reconciling the opposing sections of his party, but at the same time the Leader of the Opposition had missed the opportunity of taking a firm and dignified position. The Leader of the Opposition had dcclarod that the Premier was an opportunist, but in this he was practically accusing tho Premier of not being a fool and of not allowing his own party to defeat- him. As to Liiul tenure, he favoured allowing Crown tenants the option of converting their leases into occupation with right of purchase, at an additional one per cent., and ho expresed the opinion that 90 per cent, of them would take advantage of the opportunity. Tho trouble at present was the demand for revaluation, but with the freehold that trouble would disappear, and any deficiency in the revenue could always be made up by extra taxation. Dealing with tho West Coast settlement reserves, now administered by tho Public Trustee, ha contended that the lessee should be given the opportunity of acquiring the freehold, so long as the interests of the natives were safeguarded. More discretionary power should be given to Land Boards, especially in regard to lessening residential restrictions. They all knew, he added, the lamentablo failure the Maori Land Administration Act had been. That policy was tho policy of "taihoa" reduced to a fine art. Mr. Hone Heko did not agree with this last remark, and added that in the Ohotu block, for instance, the Europeans had shown no anxiety to take up tho land on lease. Was the reason that they could not get the freehold? If so tho blame for the non-settlement of the land did not lie on the shoulders of the Maori Land Councils. The fault lay at tho hands of Parliament. If Parliament had given the Councils tho necessary funds to enablo them to survey and road tho lands there would havo been none of this trouble whatsoever. The cost could have been charged on the lands, but so long as the money was refused everyone knew that those Councils could not do their ■ work properly. He agreed, on the general subject, that the Stato should retain the balance of its Crown lands, and only alienate them by way of lease. On the same principlo ho argued in favour of retaining tho balance of nativo lands in the possession of tho natives; if they were bold tho Maoris would in time fnll back on the State. The reason why largo areas of nativo land were not worked was because natives did not get tho same aid from the Stato a3 was given to European settlers: _ Mr. Heke went on to point out that in various districts largo areas had been thrown open for leasing, and that very few applications for the land had been mado by Europeans. It appeared that the Europeans would not take up the land unless they had the option of the freehold. Mr. Willis : The leases are too short. Mr. Hone Heke : Thero is the right of renewal. Continuing, he said that any system of settling native lands would be a failure unless Parliament provided the Councils with funds for opening tho lands for settlement purposes, such grants to be a charge upon tho land. If the European refused to take up such land on lease ho would oppose any proposal to give the Europeans the right to acquire the ficQhold. Thousands of landless Maoris wero living on their generous relatives who had retained land for their own support, and he urged that Parliament should allow no moro natives to become landless — a burden on the State. Why not enable the Maoris to work their own lands instead of making them landlords of their own lands ? No such assistance had been given them in tho past. Maoris now hud to pay in some cases full rates, and such assistance as he proposed ought in all justice to be given to them. As to the West Coast settlement reserves, the equivalent in money for the sale of the land would not be the same us the land ; they would be rendered landless, and would only be entitled fo a few shillings

interest yearly. The increased value of the land ought to go to benefit not only the European lessee but the Maori owner, for, while the value of money was decreasing, the valuo of land was on the up-grade. There were large areas on the East Coast in which it would be impossible to individualise tho titles, "but the owners had incorporated themselves into committees, and these committees now worked 47,000 acres, carrying 60,000 sheep and 10,000 cattle. The' same thing could bo done with other large areas if State aid was given to the native owners. Mr. Alison declared that .tho Premier's land proposals were one' of -the most remurkable acknowledgements of political ineptitude, of political impotence, and Lick of courage that had ever occurred in the history of the politics of the whole of the colonies. Mr. Alison was understood to be in favour of the freehold form of tenure. Mr. Duthie urged that it was the duty of the Premier, who affected to lead the house, to bring up his land proposals in tho form of a Bill, and he went on to say that the Government would not defend the land policy of the Ballance Government, which stood condemned, and the Government had declared itself incompetent to provide a policy in its place. The position was unparalleled, and the Premier must recognise that he could not claim the right to lead tho House if he would not accept the Leader of the Opposition's amendment as one of want of confidence. The Premier's action implied incompetence to formulate a land policy, and he urged therefore that the Premier was unworthy of the confidence of the House. The Premier was endeavouring to suck the brains of the House to enable him to formulate a policy, and would take credit for all that was good and reprobate the Opposition for everything that did not come out right. Mr. Duthie wont on to. find fault with the present ballot system ; and said that the special settlements had been abandoned owing to the unsuitability of the land; that the small grazing runs had not been successful ; that no one, even on the Government benches, stood by the 999 years lease; that an army' of rangers and inspectors harassed and worried the settlers; and that the residential regulations were excessive, and were now to be abandoned. They knew also what a failure the Maori Land Councils had been, and in regard to this subject, he pointed out the palpable difficulty of settling land situated as the Ohotu block is on a system of short leases. The interest of the natives was so small compared with what the settler would have to 'expend to develop tho land. Another weakness in the Government's land administration had been the fact that members of Land Boards had all been appointed for their political bias, and as to settlers generally, there was not only the insecurity of tenure but the continual threats of an increased land tax. The freehold was the only way in which they could get rk\ of these evils, but he believed in the restriction of area. Local bodies should be subsidised by the Government for the opening up of Crown lands. The Hon. C~ H. Mills expressed himself as being in facour of tho present land laws — an opinion which he elaborated to a thin and wholly inattentive House. Sir W. Russell 'believed that if the Premier had brought down a Land Bill as soon as he received the Land Commission's report ho would have had no difficulty whatever in passing it. Even now he thought the House would pass a Land Bill. The period of depression was bound to come, and would be better combatted by freeholders than by leaseholders. With regard to the aggregation of large estates, he argued that a farm of 3000 acres did not bring in anything bub a moderate income, and the number of persons who held large/estates was, ho urged, ridiculously overstated. Tho statement that the number of large estates was ruining the colony was an absoluto absurdity, and he quoted figures to prove that the number of large estates was not increasing, while, on the other hand, ir number of largo estates liad been divided into smaller areas. Many of the large estates were unfit for subdivision, and he argued that the number of estates over 10,000 acres was really only 129. At 0.25 a.m. Mr. Field moved the adjournment of the debate. This was agreed to, and the House rose.