SOLDIERS' LANDS.

Auckland Star, Volume LII, Issue 279, 23 November 1921, Page 8

SOLDIERS' LANDS.

CRITICISM IN THE HOUSE. ' DEBATE ON REPORT. (By Telegraph.—Special to " Star.") WELLINGTON, Tuesday. The report on discharged soldiers' settlement was produced by the Minister of Lands to-day, but was not tabled as a lively discussion on the system of presenting reports without members having knowledge of their contents resulted in the Minister getting insuificent opportunity to reply to a number of criticisms which had been levelled at the land purchase policy. Mr. Wilford asked if the report contained full details of the purchase price of all estates secured for -soldier settlements. Did it state what had been lost on the Erena Estate, Blenheim, or the Murchison Estate, which was not settled, and whether other lands still lying idle were enumerated? It the report did not contain these details it was valueless. He and his party would persist in asking for this information, and it would receive good backing from the country.

•'There is bound to be a loss on some settlements," remarked Mr. Witty, who asked if the Government had made provision against this contingency, and if soldiers who had to give up their holdings were able to secure something as compensation for their los-ses.

Mr. Ktatham urged the Minister to take the House into his confidence, and say what the country was losing over these settlements. It was futile to talk of £10,000 being lost on total purchases of He had seen a whole list of sections in the Auckland district lying idle, and the Minister admitted that there had been a huge blunder over the Clifton Estate. The Hon, D H. Guthrie: I don't admit it. Mr. Statham: "The administration of soldiers' land has been a heartrending business." He added that he had personally to prepare papers for a settler who wished to file his petition in bankruptcy. The reason was that he was tied hand and foot to the Government, which would give him no further assistance, while it was impossible to do business with others. Mr. Guthrie: That's absolutely wrong. Mr. Statham declared that this man could have bought 500 sheep at 5/ each if the Government could have assisted him. Mr. Glenn: There's not been a sheep sold for 5/. Mr. Witty: They have sold at Addington for 3/. Mr. McCombes demanded the information regarding valuations and the purchase price of a number of properties which he enumerated. There was, he said, a feeling of uneasiness in the public mind that the Government had failed to exercise proper care at the proper time. He would place on record some details he had collected, showing that the Government sometimes paid twice as much for- land as it was valued at for taxation purposes. Mr. E. Newman declared that as there was no money available, and no certainty about prices of products, it was impossible to state the real value of land, and any revaluation should be postponed for a few years until values became fixed. Meanwhile rebates in rent could be given. A PROTEST AMENDMENT. Dr. Thacker complained about the method of presenting reports which members had to discuss without seeing. He would move as a protest that the debate be adjourned until members hare the opportunity of intelligently grasping what they are supposed to discuss. Mr. Wilford stated that he would support the amendment, because the system which had been tolerated for ye*ars was faulty. If Parliamentary procedure was not altered there would be absolute contempt for Parliament in the minds of the general public. Mr. Holland heartily supported the amendment, declaring that it was one of the utterly farcical things about Parliament that members should be expected to discuss reports before they saw what wan in them. Mr. Howard suggested that the situation was Gilbertian, because if the amendment was carried the report would not be available. However, as the present system was so silly, he would vote for the amendment. Mr. Isitt expressed the hope that the system would be reformed, and that the amendment would not be viewed from a party standpoint. Sir Wm. ITerries suggested that members would vote against the amendment, because they wanted the report. Members could discuss it on the Estimates. Mr. Isitt: Too thin. Why did you complain when you were in opposition Sir Wm. Herries: "Because it is the Opposition's business to oppose." (Laughter.) He smilingly accused hie interrupter of endeavouring, in the role of a candid friend, to undermine the Government's influence with its supporters. Mr. Witty declared that Sir Wm. HerTies was only talking to his new members, trying- to get them to stick together. The Hon. E. P. Lee asked why Oppositionists were talking against supplying the House with valuable details of soldier settlement. Chorus of Oppositionists: Too thin. Mr. Lee went on to say that in connection with these reports he had always supported the Government. Mr. Witty: Not until you got a job. (Laughter.) Mr. Lee: The report contains details of good administration, and they don't want it. (Laughter,) Mr. Statham suggested that the Gov- • eminent had been dilatory in amending the standing orders, because the present system suited it. Mr. Massey declared that these su°-- ; gestions were misleading. Members were I not asked to debate the report; they would have endless chances. The amend- , ment was an act of folly. I Members: Bidn't you do it once yourI self? ' ! ,T ilr ", )lassev: I cannot recollect it. I J* ,B ?** , *'-) " If anything happened like j that it is ancient history, and I know a i great deal better now." (Loud laughter ) iHe emphatically declared that if the j amendment were carried he would not I introduce the report until 'he knew it ! would be received as a Parliamentary I paper ought to be received. Members j ought to realise that the time of the ; House was worth £60 per hour, and \ they should not waste it. ] Dr. Thaeker: You are wasting it. Mr. Massey: No. I am giving you a lesson you won't forget. (Laughter.) On division, in which party lines were followed, Dr. Thacker's amendment was defeated by 34 votes to 26. It then ; appeared that the Minister would have i only five minutes for reply to his critics, therefore Mr. Hockly and Mr. A. Hamilton filled in fche time till the adjournment, so that the matter would be brought up next sitting day.