THE HON. J. M'KENZIE AT AUCKLAND.

Press, Volume LIII, Issue 9432, 2 June 1896, Page 5

THE HON. J. M'KENZIE AT AUCKLAND.

(PRESS ASSOCIATION TELEGRAM.) AUCKLAND, June 1. The Hon. J. M'Kenzie, Minister for Lauds, addressed a crowded audience to. night iv the Opera House. His Worship the Mayor presided, aud on the platform were membere of the Womon'a Liberal League and Women's Democratic Union, also the Hona. W. O; Walker, Jennings, and Swaosoh, M.L.C.a., and Messrs Lawry, Kelly, and Crowfeher, M.H.R.s, and a number of representative citizens. ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ The Hou. John M'Kenzie, on burning forward, was received with cheers. He thanked the people of Auckland for their sympathy and kindness to him during his illness, and apologised for uob being able to address thorn as at) firac arranged. Hβ referred feelingly to the deaths Hon. Dr. Pollen and Sir P. Buckley, whioh no doubt everyone "wouYd regret "very much. The Liberal party had sustained great lots by their death. After referring to the political duel now goiug on he said he was I there on that occasion to fulfil a long- ' made promise to address an Anokland audience. He regretted the fight was not in abler bauds than his. He made no pretence of being an orator, and anything he would say that night would be plain statements of fact, entirely void of any flighto of oratory. The Government were taking every opportunity of meeting the people face to faoe, so ac to allow them to judga between them and their opponents, By takiug the platform their opponents did not iv any way disturb the minda of the Government, who were only too pleased to have them in the open and hear the worst they had to say about the sine and omissions ■ and conimUsions of the Government.

DEFENCE OP' THE GOVBRNMIONT. Before dealing with the legislation and administration of the Government he would refer as briefly as he could to the charges against the Government made by Captain, Russell on that platform. First, Captain Russell stated that he came here some forty years ago and found the. people noted foe great self-reliance. He accused the Government of undermining that self-reliance. , It wan difficult to understand how Captain Kuesell could claim to bo a self-reliant man, as when he came to the colony he got £800 worth of landbeaides coming here in the pay of this country to settle iv New Zealand, many, people in the colony would be quite as self-reliant if they could obtain aueh terms as these. He asked was it because the Government completely revolutionised the incidence of taxation and threw the burden of taxation ou those best able.to bear it that the aelf-reliance of the people had been undermined ? Was it because the Government had done away with the . property' tax and established • in its place a system of land and income tax, by , which the settlers of New Zealand had been relieved from having to pay taxation on the mv provement* on their farms and their stobk thereon, that this self-reliance had been undermined ? Was it because the storekeeper, the merchant, the tradesman, had now only to pay on hie income in place of on his stock, property, &c, that selfreliance had been undermined? Wae it because the Government created a live lands for settlement policy, by which people having little means can lease land from the Crown at 4 per cent, on the capital value and use their ov7n capital for the purpose of improving and settling that self-reliance wai being undermined? Was it because they had no longer to go to the land speculator to purchase land, pay down * certain amount, fend give a mortgage over the balance which iv huudrede of cases proved ruinous to tli'-se who had to take land on such terms, that, the self-reliance of bhe people was undermined ? Was it because the Government bad opened up roads to assist settlers who were unable to get on their lands that eelf-re-lianoe was undermined? Was ib because the Government had cheapened the valne of money and the large charges for mbrt* gage*, and done away with the procuration fees charged by many money-lenders in the past, that the Government had undermined self-reliance. Was it because the Government gave the settlere oi New Zealand the benefice of an organised Agricultural Department by which the produce of the ' country could now be sent to markets all over the world in far better condition than previously, and for prices almost equal to those all over the world, that self-reliance bad been undermined ? Was it because the Government had restored the railways to the people, taking them out of the hauda of the three Commissioners, who had no sympathy with the interests of the people of the colony, that self-reliance had been undermined ? Was ib beeiuaw the Government had rearranged the tariff in such a way as to give much larger advantages to the people of the colony, or by reducing railway freights on the produce of the soil iv being sent to good markers, or because they averted a fiuancial panic by the'r action in dealing with the lS*uk of New Zealand that self-reliance had been under* mined ? If the Government had allowed . the Bank to go down commeroial ruin would have spread all over the colony. Wae it because, in spite of universal de preauon, a sound financial position wm maintained by New Zealand, as conld be proved at the present time by its etooks, that the self-reliance of the people bad been undermined t Was ib beotiuae the <3» f

vernment hnd r-aaped the Pistoral Tenant*' Relief Bill of last session, that «e!frelianco hivl been undermined? Wby bad Captain 11-.nsell not gone down to Nelaon, Canterbury, Otago and Southland, and told the pastoral tenants who were dealt with under the Act that the Government undermined their self-reliance by passing this nicaMii'o? Would he get the opinion of the iiiiancial inatitutious who carried on them? men, and who, through the palling of the Ann, ate still able to carry them on, and tell them that self-reliance had been unri'itr.inol by the measure? Wai it because tin! Oovcmmeut passed Liberal legislation in the interests of the workers of New Zealand that their self-reliance bad been undermined 1 Was it because the cooperative system had been established in New Zealand, by which the wages of the workers would depend on their own exertions, owing to the manner in which the system was now carried out, by which each man was paid according to the amount of work he does, that self-reliance had been undermined? How different, be pointed out, it was when previous Governments were in office. Work had to be found for the unemployed, and each man was paid at bo much per day, whether he was able to do a day's work or only half. It was easy to make assertions that the Government had undermined the selt-reliance of the people, but it was noticeable that Cup tain Russell failed to give one single proof in support of his assertions. He (the speaker) had referred to \arioue measures passed by the Government, and could refer to mai>y others in the same way, but would not take up the time of the audience. However, he challenged the next champion of the National Aeaociation who might speak there to refer to the measures he had mentioned to prove to the people in what way their self-reliance bad been undermined. He thought it would be found very difficult to do, and he asked every intelligent lady or gentleman in the audience if he had not replied effectively to Captain Russell's accusation. Captain Russell referred to the purchase of the Porr.ahaka estate as a political job. In making such a statement job was a very nasty word to use, and anyone making such a charge should be very careful as to the proof he would be prepared to bring forward that a job had been perpetrated before using such an ugly word. What proof did Captain Russell give the audience that there was a job done at all ? This matter was duly enquired into on behalf of the House by a Committee on his (Mr M'Kenzie's) own motion, co aa to give an opportunity to those who oalled it a job to prove the charges. Not one of them was proved. After taking the evidence of all those who were in any way interested in the matter the Committee reported to the House that they found no ground for the grave charges made, and that neither the integrity of the Minister nor that of the officers under him was in any way affected. The reason why the Government took up the question of purchasing Fomahaka was that they were petitioned by 300 to do so. The petition was referred to the Land Purchase Board in the usual way. The Board reported that land was required for settlement and the land offered was suitable, and reported the price the Government should offer, which was not exceeded by the Government, and the report fairly bore all this out. Captain Russell made these charges and then necused the Premier of making personal references to him. Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones. When Captain Russell was Minister in charge of the Defence Department he was responsible for the purchase of the Polhill Gully rifle range. Before Captain Russell nhould make charges against him he ought first to clear himself from statements brought against himself as a Minister of the Crown. Captain Russell accused the supporters of the present Government or not thinking for themselves. This was a' grave charge made against the large number of people in the colony who were supporting the {Government. He also informed the Auckland people that the present Government was not the original Government of which Mr Ballance was ohief. It was wonderful now how the opponents of Mr Ballance, after he was dead, had a good word to say for him, as while he was in office the reverse was persistently the case. There were atill five members left of the original Government who heli office with Mr Ballance, and aince his death they had appealed to the people at a general election and had been returned with a larger majority than that supporting the Ballance Government. They had been accused by Captain Russell of looking out for themselves. Evidently their opponents looked upon ib as a mortal sin that anyone of the Liberal party should accept any position of trust or honour in the service of the colony. Was it to be a faco that because a Liberal Government held office no Liberal should be appointed to any position of trust or honour, and were they bound to give all these positions to their opponents ? Mr Reeves, in taking the position of Agent-General, did so at the request of his colleagues, who fully considered lie was entitled to it. Sir Patrick Buckley, in accepting the position of Judge, was constitutionally entitled to do so, holding the position, aa he did, of Attorney-General. He was sure everyone who knew Sir Patrick Buckley would regret he was not ■pared longer to show that be would have filled the position with honour and ability. Then Captain Ruseell accused Mr Seddon of appointing himself a member of the Realisation Board. Hβ (Mr M'Kenzie) waa quite prepared to state that this accusation was untrue. Mr Seddon did not appoint himself to the Board. The facta were these. The Government, after careful consideration, conoluded it neoeasary that one member of the Government ahould be on that Board in order to protect the interest of the colony, which is large. (The desire of the Government was that he (Mr M'Kenzie) should accept the position, bub he declined owing to the fact that, as Minister of Lands and nead of the Land for Settlements Department, he might, aa he hoped to, become a buyer of land from the Realisation Board, and on pointing this out to his colleagues he was relieved from accepting the position and Mr Seddon was appointed, with the full concurrence of the Cabinet. Then he himself and Mr Ward had been accused by Captain Russell of being Directors of Companies. Speaking for himself, he was connected with two Companies which did not in any way interfere with Ms duties as Minister for Lands or Agriculture. Both were Co-operative Companies, which, after paying to the shareholders fair interest,' divided their profits amongst their clients. For one of these he was a member of the Directors' Board before he took office, and the other Board he took an interest in, ac he considered he might by so doing be of some benefit to a number of fellow settlers. Waa it to be considered for the future that members of the Liberal party who might accept office were not to do anything outside of Ministerial duty ? If so, there should be a law passed to that effect, to apply not only to the Liberal side of the House, but also to the Opposition. He could point out several members of her Majesty's Opposition in Parliament who were Directors of a Company, and he thought he could show in same way that CapUin Russell was one. If, for instance, he was to be called upon to take office, that he would cease to conduct any private business ou his own behalf. To carry this out to the extreme would mean that every member who accepted a position as Minister should no longer carry on business of any description. He should even sell his farm, so that he would be in no way connected with business. If this was to be the law of the land how were public men to provide for old age, or how were they to provide for their families ? Was it out of the paltry £800 a year they got as Ministers that they were to be called upon todoso. The question of the subservient majority supporting the Government in the House if it meant any thing at all meant that those who were elected to support the Government had stood true to their colours. Referring to the significance of the Christ- • church election, which had been made a great deal of by Captain Russell and their opponents, he was in Chrietchurch the day on which that election took place, and was satisfied that no great significance could be attached to it so far as the Opposition was conoerned, for were it not for a split in the Liberal party on that day the Conservatives would not have won the seat. It would serve as a warning to the Liberal party. Was it not just as ttguificant at the last election that the Liberals in Hawke'e Bay were split, otherwise at this day Captain Russell would not »t a member cf the Home.

Z.AND LESISI.4TIOIT. When the lUHance Government took office they found that the beat lands were disposed of, aud decided upon a new departure, and as a result the present land laws were passed, which were the most liberal io the Australasian colonies, lie referred at some length to the struggle which took place in the House and Legislative Council before the general land la we became the law, he showed that a large number of people had been pub on the lend under various systems, and gave detiiia of land sold uuder all the systems, saying tfae figures given by C&ptiin Russell were incorrect, fie was now in Ek position to give fche trae returns for the five years ended March 31st lait. Under all the systems 114,000 selectors took up land daring that period. That was to say, leaving out pastoral jteuaiite, 511. If these were included the total number veooli be 119,111, but pastoral tenants could not be looked upon as new selectors, and he ex* eluded them. This"meant ai tfae rate of 22,800 per annum, which was a larger number than that of selectors duriog his predecessor's term of office. A great deal of noise was made about people not being all on the land, but it was not compulsory for them to be on the land for four years fcom the time they made a selection. His desire was that the time should be fixed at two years, and those who were responsible for the extension were the Conservative*, who thought by doing so they would be able to squeeze in a few dummies. The last time there was a census taken of selectors, out of 1887 on the 31st March last, actually 458 were resident, although only 112 should have been under the Act, and it must not be supposed that because the rest were not) there they were doing nothing to the land, for a number were preparing to make homes i and making other improvements. He ventured to say the land was taken up by bona fide settlers, who were different to the settlers who took up land under the Richardson administration. In the latter case he found that 32,009 acres in Canterbury, which had been applied for by 87 original applicants, bad been afterWards transferred to nine large landholders and companies, and this was just one instance. The history of the special settlements was next given, and what had been done under them. Since the Land for Settlement Act came into operation twenty-nine estates, containing 86,818 acres, had been purchased at a cose of £390,098. Nine estates were presently under an area of 20,605 acres, estimated to cost £129,701. Altogether fourteen estates were under offer, an area of 177,411 acres, at a cost of £614,660. The purchase of Native estates had received the consideration of the Government. Since the Government took office one million and a half acres of Native Und had been acquired by them at * cost of about £360,000. The sum of £851,718 had been expended on roads. Employment had been found for 14,000 persons, who otherwise would have starved. BOBROWINO. The Government had been accused of borrowiag. lie did not deny they had borrowed, but it was not for the same purposes as past Governments. Money had been borrowed for the purchase of land, &o. THE RAILWAYS. During the past year there had been concessions made to the extent of at least £2500, and notwithstanding this the railway revenue showed an increase of £15,761 over the previous years, and so far as the business was concerned there had been increase in nearly all directions; 256,848 more passengers were carried than during the previous year, 320,000 more sheep, 20,741 tons minerals, and 20,000 more tons of other merchandise. ADVANCES TO SETTLERS. Referring to advauces to settlers, the total amount accepted by applicants up to date was £654,700, made up as follows :— Auckland £83,407, Taranaki £85,735, Hawke's Bay £40,770, Wellington £206,458, Marlborough £26,735, Nelson £12,385, Canterbury £27,340, Weatland £3*65, Otago £168,605, CONCLUSION. He advocated State Fire Insurance, the profits of which, if any, should go to the people. As to national prohibition the Government were in favour of a majority of three-fifths to settle the question. He concluded amid cheers, having spoken for nearly two and a half hours. Mr Malcolm Nicol moved, and Mr J. M. Shera seconded the following resolution, which was carried by a show of bands, none against — "That this meeting of Auckland citizens accords a hearty vote of thanks to the Hon. J. M'Kenzie for his able and instructive

address, and expresses unabated confidence I in the present Government. , ' I