PARLIAMENT.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 683, 7 December 1909, Page 3

PARLIAMENT.

GOVERNMENT'S LAND POLICY. ANOTHER WARM DEBATE. REMARKABLE SPEECH BY MR. MILLAR. PREMIER ON PARTY ALLEGIANCE. Host of the sitting of the Legislative Council yesterday .afternoon was taken up with a-dis-cussiori as, to,whether Major Mair had received ■adequate : recompense for his services in tho Waikato War, and also in lus judicial- career of■ over fifty years. In the House the Shipping and Seamon Amondment Bill, and Designation of Districts Amendment'Bill wore read a third time and passed. 'J'ho second reading of the -Lands for Settlement Administration -Bill was agreed to after a long debate, and the Land Settlement; Finance Bill was passed.'' The House rose at 12.50 am. ■

THE COUNCIL. THE STANDING ORDERS. 'A brief'.sitting of: tho. Legislative; Council was held yesterday afternoon. ; ; _ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL .gave notice of his intention to move on' day that the Standing Orders' bo so far suspended as to enable-all Government, Bills to be put through all their stages at one sitting. BILLS FROM STATUTES REVISION! . COMMITTEE, The Statutes" Revision:. Committee recom-mended-that the' Magistrate's Courts Amendment Bill and tho New Zealand Society ;of Accountants' ■'Amendment Bill: be' allowed to proceed- as' amended. , >... - Magistrate's Courts Amendment Bill. ' The' only alteration made by, the committee in the Magistrate's - Courts Amendment Bill was the addition of . a - new sub-clause as follows:—"Where a statement .'Of. claim or -counter-claim' is "in the form set out in. the schedule, tho Court may, on such terms as to costs and .otherwiso as it thinks fit, order .that particulars shall, be given.'' :. iV - Tho Bill was set down for committal to-day. Society of Accountants Bill. In the New Zealand Society of Accountants Amendment Bill, • the' committee struck out •.the'- following -clause:—"Every person who . has,- pursuant to sub-Section ' 2 of Section 10 of the principal . Act, lodged. in. the Supreme Court notice of appeal against the determination- qf the board;' and 1 who shall apply to tho Council under the provisions of this Act, shall be deemed to have abandoned his appeal.", . : The committeo' added the;' following new clause:—"No person who hns, pursuant to sub-Section-2 of Section 10' of the pTinicpal Act, lodged in the Supreme 'Court notice ot .appeal against the determination of the:board shall bo affected "by or entitled to . any. benefit under this Act if his appeal shall/have .been .heard and determined'before the passing of this ' or. if ;he does not within fourteen-days .after, the passing of this Act apply to'tie' G'puncil in manner hereby provided. . Every such personwho "shall-apply to the Council under - the provisions of : this Act shall be; deemed to' have abandoned his appeal." , . ;: ,

PETITION OF MAJOR MAIR. ' Members then considered' the report of the Public Petitions'' Committee' on the- petition of ,Major William Gilbert Mair (ex-judge;' of ..the Native?. Land, Count), which, .was as follows—' " -■>•:'"TheCommittee,\having.considered .the., ■i. petition' and: taken .evidence :thereon,-;_ is ~ of opinion that the 1 niany im- ■ ; pontant services rendered by. the petitioner . to the country, and particularly the distmfuished part borne by. him. in tho Waikato x VaiV .entitle; him. to. the. favourable con- '■ sideration of the Government.": ' . The Hon. J., r E." JENICINSON.'/(Wellington), who moved, 'the adoption of.'.tie" report,' said that. a- NatyiZealaridefcji-aM.'.waS. close' on r 'so"years 'm"lhVpiiblib I 'Service? During, the, Waiiato War : he : undertook with' couspicuous success' the commahd of "a small-com-pany. Both as a magistrate and as'adjudge of the' Native, Land Court,,he, his duties ''faithfully -and/well.' j.ln '1891- he was i retired,. but . was paid some little' amount of compensation. '. .. • ' A member: How much? -' ' /Mr. Jenkinson: I think about ',£I2OO. - > Resuming; Mr. .Jenkinson said that: tlie unfortunate', part,of it' .w&S ' that he;-was'..retired ■lG'months prior to the date'at which' he iwonld, • havo : been. entitled to a' lt -was a I sorry'thing that to-day he and others had to almost beg that justice should be'done hini. . -. A 1 member:. What - was- the - amount; of; tho re-, tiring .allowance? . " Mr. Jenkinsbii: I Hiink Xl3O per annum.:. Dr. Findlay: He .has-received the samejtreatment as others who have been retired, i'• ■'■ ; Mr. Jenkinson: - Wo. sliould be' ashamed .to say 50.."... . • - 'The Hon. Sir G. M'LEAN (Otago), in seconding the.;motion, .declared:;that; petitioner' had received very poor treatment coinfared with what had' been afforded ■ other old;, public ser,-. The Hon. Major HARRIS (Auckland) said he wasastonished'to hear that petitioner was getting an Allowance of only .£l3O per . anhum; He remembered when petitioner was sent on- one occasion to ask a strong' bund of fortified Natives to-surrender. It Myas an errand few would have cared to have -undertaken. Other bid soldiers,: who resided nearer Wellington,: had'received much nioro adequate. recompense:'for.,their, serviaes. ' Tne Hon. W. Beehan (Auckland).-Hon. Captain Baillie (Marlborough). Hon. Sir H.? J. ;rMiller (Otago), Hon. C. H. Mills (Wellington), Hon. Wi Pers (Hawke's 'Bay), Hon. T:-,Thompson , (Auckland), Hon. G. Jones ' (Otago), and Hon:' J. Marslmll (Westland) supported tho resolution.

Remarks by thß Attorney-General; The ATTORNEY-GENERAL stated that the petitioner, ' had had a. distinguished and honourable career. He was; retired . in 1891,-because the special work-which, he. had been performing; was completed. However much a Government might sympathise with an old servant it had no right to keep in its employ a man . who. had nothing-to do. i When; petitioner was ..retired . in-1891 he was. in re-' ceipt.-of-'''JBSO.-per annum.j Upon being-re-employed 'some years-later he received .£400; per annum, but his salary was afterwards raised to ,£550 again. ■■ It had/to ibo. remembered that-in 1891 petitioner received a'lump siim of ,£I2OO, which would 'have purchased an annuity of ill! per; annum, - df • that'sum Were' added to his superannuation allowance (JCI3O) it would be seen that petitioner had ■really received nearly X 250 per annum.: Tha. 1 question then arose as ■to whether J6250 a year was-a fair .allowance.. A. similar petition was at the ! present time ■ before 'the 4 House,. and ! a '■• report -was expected in :a ..few' days. .<lt was for tho Council to say whether; a .vote ;should be taken' that day or be deferred until that report was brought down. He -would do his best to impress on his colleagues any lution 7hioh' ; was adopted.. . All he wished, to say in conclusion was that; the State must be just to the 'afhole of the people before it was generous to, any .oneJndiyidual. . . ! _ Replying to the Hon;, C. H. Jtills, the Attorney-General stated that if'petitioner: had : "uot been;retired until he had served his full term he would-have received a pension .of . two-; thirds of his salary (£550), viz., X3G6. . - ■ 'When; the - question was put, . the .resolution was adopted without dissent, ; the AttorneyGeneral, under 'the circumstances,', abstaining from voting. ■' ; •...■ .. '

THE HOUSE. THE LAND PROPOSALS. HON. 1, A. MILLAR DEFENDS HIS .■"•'.'■IPOSITION. A REMARKABLE SPEECH. . "When the House met yesterday afternoon, the debate' on the Lands Committee s report on the Land Bill was resumed. ' i'. ■; ■ Air. WRIGHT South) said that if the 'Government persisted in the intontion to pass the'present land proposals, it would mean th 6 disruption of the Government sooner or later. He recommended' tho Government'.to withdraw Bill till somothing more iiv-har-mony with the general principles of the Liberal party could.be brought about.. Ho hoped that it would cease to cling, to office merely'for the sake iof clinging to it. . <[ ■'■■■ ■ ■ Mr. T. E. TAYLOR (Christchnrch North) spoko in -support of the amendment moved by Mr. Herrios "that tho minutes of proceedings -of the Committee .- with . reference ■ toT.ithe Bill be laid upon the table of the House and i printed." It-was. au extraordinary .thing that they should be..asked to 'consider without knowing whether it was i true -that the I i ; r'jne Minister had' moved for the; recommit..

tal of tho Dill, so that he might, with tho assistance. of certain Opposition .members/secure. the rc-cnactmont of clauses that were objectionable. to. a majority of ■ the committee when tho Bill was-first under consideration. He would like Mr. Guthrie to.give the House an assuranco that his vote was not Used to reinstate tlie freehold clauses of tho Bill. Perhaps some .of . the leasehold members of the committee -would •, say whether • the Ministerial hostility to the leasehold principle had extended to.seeking the co-operation of Opposition members to defeat tho leasehold principle. Air. Taylor went on to refer to the co-opora-tion as "this unholy alliance." The Government had. surrendered Liberal principles to the freehold, and the time to give up - the nine million acres of endowments would bo when another critical time occurred in • connection with the life, not of the Liberal' party, but of tho-Cabinet. When it bocame necessary for'tlie Cabinet to preserve itself,. it would act like the driver of .a Russian sledge, who was'pursued by wolves, and- who threw, overboard first 'One child,' and then another, and finally his wife, so that his own, unworthy skin might be safe and sound. Mr, Gnthrie Explains.

■ llr. GUTHRIE (Oroua) explained his attitude: in regard to what happened to ; the Bill while it was before the Lands Committee. He was not present when tho matter was . first brought;up, s as he had to leave Wellington to attend 'to some private business. On his return -he found out what had been done, but ho knew nothing about it till ho returned, and he had not been asked by anyone to return. He added that he had not "been asked by either one side or the other to givo his vote in the committee. If the amendment that the minutes of the committee be laid on the table was carried, it would be seen who was responsible for the whole" position. : Mr. Davey: Did anyone communicate with you asking you to hurry back again? Mr. Guthrie: replied tlrat ho had received no communication from one side or- the other. But, he .added, if the motion to put the freehold clauses back; had been carried in committee by. means of-his'vote he would be proud of .the fact, becauso-he realised that tno great majority of the people of this coujtry were in favour of the, freehold. Otherwise, they would never have sent.s4 members to that Parliament to support it. (Hear,, hear.) Let the leaseholders make an appeal to the country, and they •would soon find out where they were. ! Mr. Arnold on a' Referendum.

: Mr. ARNOLD (Dunedin Central) said he was informed that no casting vot'e was given at the second; meeting of the Lands Committee, at which the freehold clauses were reinstated by sis votes to four. Tho facts seemed to show that one leaseholder had voted to have the clauses deleted at the first meeting, when Mr. :GnthHo was not present, and for their restoration at the-second meeting. He was sorry thai the Standing Oiders had not been amended so that the press might be represented at some of the meetings of standing committees. He had put a question.to the Government on this subject, and the reply was simply that the matter was under consideration. 1 While the Government sought to justify itself in putting the 'Land Bill through, the Houso .by the support of the Opposition, if the 21 leaseholders on i their own side, or portion of them, were to be 1 found, as they might be found within the. next few days, voting ,with the Opposition'against the Government,' then what was justified on behalf of the Government would'be one of the greatest political- crimes that could be committed on the part of the minority. Mr. 'Arnold urged that the land, question was not before tho country at tTie last olection, and ho stated that he would be quite willing* to. have the 'question submitted to .a referendum., ■ Of course, if, the referendum proved hostile to the leaseholders, he would still try'to .educate the country-to their point of view. •; Indeed, he would not mind, standing down from the next election and spending three- years in an endeavour to educate' the country on tnis, qucs-' tlOll. Mr. Sidpy's Opinions. '■ Mr. SIDEY (Dunedin: South) said' that' if committees :decided-- on - having-, their -proceedings open to the press, lie.saw no valid.reason why the "reporters should not <be'present.; He believed that the'. national "endowments should bo preserved, and he : sympathised with; the opposition to the present land proposals.-)- He recognised, that; the; lease in perpetuity tenure was-a-bad bargain for- the State, .which had to make the best bargain it could forget out of it.. ■-■ *© •■/■, -

HON. J. A. MILL'AR IN DEFENCE.;, , • CONDEMNS LAND FOR SETTLEMENT SYSTEM. ; '. The Hon. .T. A. MILLAR ■ said that,the Gov-, ornmcnt-• hud. -'been accused of-betrayal of the national right,: but could any member show him any clause in. the . new Bill where the power to' lease' was restricted,? ../It had been' said that' he "had departed from. tbe .leasehold principle, bat the same rights were given with regard-to the leasehold, in the jew Bill as before.' He had also been twitted with the question of what, ■..would he .say to his con■stitnents in'regard to . llis 'change of opinions. He had not changed his'opinions in the slightest. What did'the country say at . the last general election? . .The Act passed two years ago laid down the principle that the option of tne'freehold was'to be, not .that the principle'of the Liberal party? ' Tho principle of tho opt ion, of the freehold'beinK given to .the. Crown tenants-was endorsed: by. the •people of the country at the. last election. Itappeared to ,him that the country'' was pro- 1 posed to be\ run for,, 4417 land , for settlement •? For them : the time .of the' country 'and the' House was to be wasted day after day. The sooner this 'question/was before the people, and ;they had a fair, understanding on it, the better : it would be. Some timo before he: had v stated in the House. that •he ■ iras opposed; to : any .further money boing borrowed 'for land for settlement.. They had spoken 'against the 'lease, in 'perpetuity;;;, they ; had stated that it was a bad thing, and should ■be wiped out, and he'did.-not think 1 that there ,was. one per, cent, of, those who were opposing :the Bill who did not, want, that tenure done ; away with. But what;was'it to be replaced •.withP- The lease, in perpetuity' was terminable :after .a, thousand .years, but . the renewable lease was'interminable. .The million odd acres . which ' . had , been - acquired,-. under, the Land for Settlement . Act, were,, practically gone from 1 the.' State: for': ever' and ever. : The principle at'the back of the leasehold ,was that the unearned increment, should be the :proporty,of the. State.' That was provided for' under the present Bill. . jC.membc-r: You give it away, under this Bill. : Mr. Millar: You get it under this Bill, and to a greater extent. _ Mr.-Millar reviewed the provisions'in the Bill for periodical revaluations in support of. his statement.

Not, Afraid to Go to the Country. "I speak- for myself as 'a l ' inembor of the Cabinet," Mr. Millar said. 'T don't know what Cabinet will do. I am quite pirepaTed to risk my. life next- week.' I am* not .'afraid' to' (;o_ to the: country .on - the. matter." - Six; million pounds had been spent in settling, 1117 people on'- the' land, and • it' seemed' that these, people were going to dominate the *, whole of the colony. He' felt that; the country- would back the Government up in connection with ; its proposals. . ■ \Mr.;:Taylor: No.

Mr. Millar: I say yes. _• ■ Mr. Taylor: Why not test the question? . Mr. Millar (resuming) said;that Mr. Sidey was wrong • when' he ' stated that the lease-in-,perpetuity settlers could convert to the ,freo-. .'hold whenever they liked. .-. ,- Mr. Sidey: Look at Clause sof the Act. ■ , Mr. Millar: Clause 12 says that.the conversion must take place within, two jears.: Continuing, Mr. Millar said the Government wanted to : see whether there was a demand for the' freehold.. If . the settlers, did not take advantage' of the' provision in the Act" the land ' would remain leasehold .for , ever. .. »r Mr. Taylor : That is a great resolution. Mr. Millar: It is.. •, ... . Mr. Taylor: But it will be abandoned as soon as itnere. is need .for it. You will throw it overboard whenever you think it advisable.

"The Government Intends"-For How Long? Mr. Millar went on to say that the nine millions of national endowment. land was intended to be kept as leasehold land for all time. •Mr. Poolo:' Are -you'sure? : -Mr. Millar: As far as.wo are concerned. • Mr. TaylorUntil the pressure is sufficient. Mr. Millar'next remarked that undor , the proposals it was proposed to acquire Native land to' tho.extont of half a million a year. . 'Mr. Russell: Will you .ever givo the freehold of ,that? • ' " ' " . .. ':. Mr.-Millar: Only the back sections. • ■ Mr. Taylor: Wo shall seo.. Mr. Millar then declared that tho criticism 6f the proposals was not; due• so much 'to a desire to retain the leasehold, as to throw the country into a state of chaos. . The Liberal party had, .as a matter/of. fact, stuck, to the leasehold, system.. It had introduced the' new proposals s'iiflply bccauso no country could go on buying estates as New. Zealand was doing. Every'estate'"purchased .'led to the enhancement of tho value of the remaining private estates. I It seemed to him that tho whole country was going to be.run for'tho sakq of the Crown tenants. . v . ;^ Crown Tenants Becoming a Bigger Factor. ■Whenever there was a snow-storm- who paid ? ■ Why tho Government. - And the samo thing happened when thero wris a flood, when, tenants suffored of any kind, .when, tiora was

a bush-fire. In view of that fact he, for one, hesitated- to .continue the old system. As timo went on the Crown tenants seemed to become a bigger factor in tho dominance of tho country. Members: Impossible. . Mr. Russell: They nro running. tho country now, and tho freehold is sought to bo . given them.

Mr. Millar: Here we aro spending thousands of pounds in a debate'on this question. '■ Continuing,- Mr. Millar said that he was not prepared to go on asking- the people to put settlers on the land at a cost of JJ1260. apiece, which was the average figure to date. Mr. Taylor: Is this the new Liberal policy? . Mr. Millar: You should remember that you have peculiar ideas on Liberalism. . Mr. Russell: If that is tho .position why don't you repeal the Lands for Settlement Act? . Resuming, Mr. Millar declared that nowadays, as soon as a settler found his feet, he began to clamour for the straight-out freehold. The people who opposed tho demand were the city representatives, and ho was one of them. "Practically all members for the country districts supported tho settlers in their claim. The only way to retain leasehold land for those who wanted to get on tho land was by the means proposed in the Bill. Despite its efforts in. this direction, tho Government believed it was: only a matter of timo when the freehold would be given. There jras no I fairer svstem than that which was proposed in tho Bill, viz., that the enhanced value of tho properties due to expenditure on public works should go back at periodical terms for the benefit of the State. " • Mr. Witty: Will they be content? Change of Policy Admitted. Mr. Millar added: "I know we are making a new departure in regard to policy. It .is a policy of greater advantage to the Crown than tho old system. When we come to the Land , Bill I will be prepared to debate it further/'

MR. HANAN REPLIES TO MR. MILLAR. ' Mr. -HANAN (Invercargill) said the House had not been called upon to . consider { a more important statement than was now before it. for the last fifteen or eighteen year's. They were proposing to alter the whole policy of which . th-e colony had been _so .- proud. According to tho Minister for Railways, the lands for settlement policy was now- to stop. ■ Mr. Russell: That's what it amounts to. , Mr. Taylor: Yes; that's it. .'Mr. Hanan twitted Mr. Millar with not having declared such a policy before his constituents. . ■ ' Mr. Millar interjected-that he had mentioned it in the House, and his. constituents know his views. ' Mr. Hanan said lie had not made such a decided declaration. ' Mr. Millar replied that he had clearly stated that the country' could not go on. borrowing money for , lands for settlement. . . : Mr. Hanan continued his speech on lines strongly favouring the leasehold principle, which he maintained was a sound one. Ho .believed that the land .question, was not thoroughly understood by the people. Tho freehold party had scared the farmer. ."What," asked Mr. Hanan, "did the early settlers como out from England and, Scotland for?" '

The jlon. T. Mackenzie (emphatically): To get the freehold.

The Debate Adjourned. - : Mr. Hanan went on to discuss the question in regard to other countries, „ and referred to Ireland. ; The Hon. T. Mackenzie: Tho leasehold won't settle' Ireland.:- ; Mr. Hanan, in ; an impassioned manner, went on to declaim against the present ' decision of tho Government. .Ho believed that' when the people understood the position,, they 'or their children, ;or their children's children would make someone pay, for it, and that they would say cursed be the land laws that were-passed m 1907, 1903, or 1909. He considered' they would bo political cowards'and political backsliders—(hear, hear)—if they sanctioned what was-proposed now.. No .Minister shonld-ask any member to do anything that would-make him lose self-respect in-the eyes -of-his constituents. . (Hear, hear.) ■ At 5.30-p;m.- the debate was interrupted"by the Visual intimation from'tho Speaker—"Sorry' to interrupt the hon. 'gentleman.' He can continuo his speech to-morrow, afternoon."

GOVERNMENT BTLLS PASSED. ■ In tho evening tho Shipping and Seamen Amendment Bill (Hon. J.. A. -Millar), and Designation of Districts Amendment Bill (Hon. ,D. Buddo) were read a third time and passed, jlri'regord to tho Shipping and Seamen Bill,; 'Mr." -MASSEY" referred ' to the provision' requiring that plans' for new -Vessels must be .submitted - to' • the Minister - for approval. This clause, he said, was objected to by tho shipand he hoped that the Minister would inquire into it, with the view of having tho clauso modified in tlio Legislative Council. ; The MINISTER for' Marino (Mr.Millar) said that he would tako steps to find out the reason', for. tho opposition to the clause: in ■question. Ho believed that ■ the •, principal objection was on account 'of tho'supposed delay - that it would entail, but: he thougnt that he would be' able to show that up delay need take place. He .would, however, make inquiries, and consult with his colleague: in -the Legislative. Council on'the.subject;;.., , ' Tho PRIME MINISTER proposed that .item No. 3 of the Order Paper, "Death Duties Bill, 'consideration of report,"-shonld be postponed [till after, No. 7,. "National, Provident ITund Bill,'second reading." 1 'Mr. MASSEY. objected that it was somewhat unfair to move to postpone the Bill at the last, He asked if Sir Joseph Ward pro-' posed to take No. 7 that night. The Prime Minister: No. I am-going right : on with No. 4—."Lands for Sottlement Administration Bill, second reading." ■ : ~ Mr. Massev said that -with so much .work to bo done he thought it was only fair and iright that members should know what Bills 'were to be proceeded with,- so that they should have an opportunity* of reading "ism.- It-was impossible.to read'five or six Bills a.day aid 'get an idea of what.was in'them. i The PRIME MINISTER said ■ that when the Death Duties Bill was • iri Committee lie had stated that ho might recommit it. < Ho had contemplated doing so by Governor's Message. He. thought it wasbetter that it should bo recommitted. '

Mr. Massey: Why not do it now? The Prime Minister replied that the amendments were not; ready. Some of them were very important;

LAND FOR SETTLEMENT BILL, DEBATE ON SECOND READ4NG. In moving-the second reading of the Land for Settlement Administration bill. ■, • The PIUME MINISTEII said, no. change in the vital principles of the lands.for settlement system was involved in it. The only alterations' were in the direction !of more efficiently carrying out the purposes for which the principal Act was designed. There were two . distinct : portions-.'of' the -Bill, the'first dealing with methods of raising and investing money, and the liiauner iu which the accounts should be kept, and the second involving minor changes in land administration and the conditions under which estates acquired 1 : for ■ settlement should be dealt with.- AU lands -acquired for settlement under the Lands for Settlement Act •were to be vested in the Superintendent of tho State Advances Department. The Bill would • not'alter the administration or occupation provided for by the Lands for Settlement Act of 1908 in anv way. Provisions were made for the transfer "of liabilities regarding loans already raised, from the Government to ■ the Superintendent of the, Advances .Department. Whatever the amount was it'would cease to of the public debt-from the coming into effect of 'this measure. The whole of the money raised would, be guaranteed by the State. Provision was made for borrowing .£500,000 for the acquirement of Native lands. The area' of holdings of iirst-class land' had .beenTeduced from 1000-to4oo,acres; of secondclass land, from 2000 acres to 1000 acres; and of third-class land from 5000 to 2500 acres, formerly, preference without competition was given to employees who had been deprived of their , employment through the acquisition of /the estate. When the Bill was before the Lands Committee that clause had been deleted so that employees would have to tako their chances the same as other applicants., (Hear, hears.) Provision-was made for. tho acquisition of land near to towns, where the requirements of town workers would be met. In some instanoes owners had had the value of. their estates raised because they'were in'fear of the Government acquiring them. The Bill provided a means to secure a reduction of such valuations.

Mr. Massey's Views. . . Mr. MASSEY thought that tho Bill was worthy of a more exhaustive outline than had ■been given. It contemplated tho passing of the State Guaranteed Loans Advances Bill, which was at the present time hung up. The Bill did not propose to seriously interfere with the principle of the Lands for Settlement system. In his opinion, tho serious ; defect of that system was .neglect to cater for those who wanted emnll holdings. H.o understood,' from a spccch delivered . oarlier in. Hie dav— Jlr. Millar: You arc referring to a past debate. ' Mr, Massey : Evidently your,'cohsoience is not at rest. .. .... . Mr. Millar: It is perfectly, easy'; Mr. Massey stated that he understood from the spcoih. iu eiUestioa that it was intended

to v put an end to the land for settlement system/because it., was'held to be too costly; too expensive. . Mr. Ell: A point of ordor. . Mr,: Massey: You did not stop ,me soon enough, for I have said all I wanted to on the subjcct . just now. The Speaker: You raust not refer to a past debate,. v Mr. Massey: "It is quite'evident that the speech of which the. Hon. gentleman is-think' ing has caused consternation . in tho Gov« emmont camj). I would advise Ministers to reconcilo their differences in tho . Cabinet room—

Mr. Millar: There is no conflict. Mr.: Massey: You say.no conflict, hut I heard one. of-the Ministers say— . Iho Speaker:. You are out of order now. •Mr. Massey went on .to say that ho believed thoroughly in 'the, land for settlement scheme, and he would'like to improve on it by giving settlers tho option of iho freehold at the prieo it post the country. They, had not had this year the usual information placed beforo the House, as to operations, under tho Land for Settlements Act. . It wns-impossible to obtain any details regarding the working of any particular estate.- The Bill-proposed to reduce very considerably, the area which a man whose land was taken should retain, and where there was no homestead it was proposed that he should retain nothing. He had always thought that the amount 'that , might be retained should be. dependent on the size .of a man's family, he would movo later to amend the Bill in> this direction. , Clause 24, ' providing that land might he taken ' compulsorily for homes, and home-farms' for workers, seemed to him unnecessary and unfair. It had never been .necessary in the past to tako land compulsorily for workers* homes. As the clause stpod it would apply-practically to the whole Dominiero. It meant that any farmers' land-could be taken from liirn with the exception of ten acres. The Government had more land for workers' dwellings than it knew .what to do with. Nothing had been done with the Nai Nai property of 150 acres, purchased near Wellington for this purpose, and at Auckland the Government had more land for workers' dwellings than it could use in 25 years. He wanted it made perfectly, clear the subsidiary roll would not be discontinuedHe believed in the proposal to disqualify a successful applicant who did not hold on.to his land from going in for further ballots.. If he disposed of his gection within five years he should be disqualified from'further 'ballots. There had been too much speculation in this connection. When the. Bill v/ds in committee lie would have more-to say.

Land Tonurcs. Mr. 6. W. RUSSELL (Avon) held that the Lands for Settlement Act had dona much good wort' since its inception, particularly in the South Island. Ho was surprised to, hear from two Ministers that it was not proposed to continue the system. . Tho Prime Minister: The hon. member is re. ferring to \a past debate. The Speaker: I mtost rule him out of order. Mr. Russell said if tlio landless had had preference at the ballot there would have been very little of tho cry for the freehold. What tho people wanted was land—tho question of tenure was not tho first consideration:

The' Hon". T.' Mackenzie: Hear, hear. Mr. Kussoll: The Minister savs "Hear, hear." What is the position as regards himself? After having turned a political somersault'he found himself in tho Ministry, and one result is to u[)set the-whole policy, of the Government. Did the cry for the freehold come from land for settlement settlers?

Hon. R. M'Kenzio; Yes. , i. Mr. Russell said that not p. neiiiion I:ad, been' sent in in favour of'. tho freeliold tenure),

A member: I have presented five-myself. Mr. ERASER (Wakatipu) that the real object of the Bill was fhe transfer of liabilities under the Act from the Public Debt.to tho Advances Office. He could not see any difference, between a.. State guaranteed debenture and a debenture issued by the State.": If 1 the Government did not..intend' to proceed with the Stato Guaranteed Loans Advances Bill, as had been rumoured, theie would liavo to bo an alteration in, tho Bill. There was nothing in the Bill about limitation of the area which an applicant might hold;.so tlio Prime Minister was wrong in that regard. Ho did not anticipate any great, benefits from 1 the alterations made in the methods of administration.

"Sonjewhat Crude." j ; Mr. BUICK. (Palmerston) thought the' Bill was somewhat crudo and unconsidered. Claus® .10, which referred 'to owners', reserves, ; seemed to bo contradicted by Clause 21! Owners of land outside boroughs- would' be- subjected to a feeling of uncertainty-as^.to how • long thoy_ woiild keep it. lit''would bV-poSibl® als6*7or ; s tho Government to 'take -tho laml'of'- a. political opponent against his will at less tfian his -yalnation, or pay tob.irtUoh to a political supporter. Mr. JAMES-ALLEN (Br'nco) said that if an. attempt was' to boi'inade 'to/'riiake the'.' public think' Publio Debt was smaller , than it was, that ' would be a - bad '-• tendency of the Bill. Ho hoped ' that there would bo ' no', - subterfugoin' 'to ..tho' .'debt: Undei' the Bill 'all the assets of the Superintendent, including, tho lands purchased for settlement, were , available 'as securities for money, borrowed. - Ho wanted to know if the Prime Minister was pledging and pawning the colony's freehold Estate. 1 to creditors in Eng : land. Tho , Prime; Minister., said" that the ambunt ,to be borrowed had been increased, 'from half-a million to a million, ,so that half a million might bo spent on'the purchase :'of Native lands. But tho said nothing 1 about purchasing . Native land's. '.' '

The Prime Minister said- that that was incorporated in the Native . Land. Bill. '

" Mr.- Allen objected to the system of .making one Bill dependent on' another. Under this Bill-almost any land in New Zealand could be taken by the Government. An enormous, power was proposed to be placed in the hands of the Executive,' whiclr he" thought should not be given them. He did not see the necessity for these provisions of the Bill.' He ! hoped when the Bill was in Committee some very strong reasons would be given before these clauses were- allowed to £0 through., He did; not gather,- from this ; Bill, that_ tho Government was going to ■ .lands for 'settlement. Was it to : 'be assumed, from what had been stated on previous, occasions, that this Bill had little or "no meaning? If there had been great difficulties, in the past in obtaining money for lands .for settlement, bow was the Prime'Minister'going-to-raise .tKe bugo, sums, which it was proposed .to borrow under this and the Guaranteed Advances Bill ? .

Mr. Buchanan's' Views," ' : Mr. BUCHANAN (Wairarapa) said the Bill did not indicate , that the Government was going to' abandon*; the- purchase of lands for settlement, and lie hoped that it was'not. The reduction of owners' reserves from 1000 acres to 400 acres,was iridiculous in the case of hundreds of thousands of acres which could only be used for carrying sheep, and which;was useless for agriculturalor. dairying purpose. Further■ classification of lands under .the Bill was required. There were cases in which 5000 acres were not too many to 'be reserved. He did not object to-the reduction m the area in the case of what was. really first-class land. He did not know'where the demand camo in for workers' homes to compulsory clause in the Bill. He hoped that the | Minister would-amend'the elatts.es-he had referred to, so that the Bill might bo put,] through with the least possible delay. Housing Problem. • Mr. M'LAREN: (Wellington East) hoped that some attempt would bo made to solve tho housing problem':- At present ,half the «ages of a largo number of the workers went; in ront " If the problem wero to be properly solved it would-entail -tho borrowing of a large sum every, year for a number of years tO Mr! ra WILPOED (Hutt) thought it was quite possible for a man to make a; good living 'ou a small area of fertile land near a centre oi population. Tho holding of such small areas would be very beneficial -to --'city ' workers in periods of unemployment. Mr. Wilford Quoted from an articlo in ■ .the ; London ■ Standard . which stated that out of 5,500,000 holdings in France, 4,200;0W>; were owned by those, who occupied them, tlio averago size of each holding being only 101 acres, Figures were given to show tho great productivity of these small I'm'" 1 LANG (Mamikau) emphasised tho point that tho Opposition-'did not wish to do away with the leasehold. The -leasehold should, bo, available to everyone'. that liked it, but the option of ' acquiring the freehold should be given. It was his opinion that the present Bill would injure the .'interests of tho small S °ThT'Hon. -T. Y. DUNCAN (Oamaru) said ho had knmvri a man bring "up a family and do woll on an area of three acres, by .growing fruit and vegetables. Most' of tho delects in tho Bill, could ho put right in; Committee , Air BINE (Stratford) said that lie. went so for with the Radicals as to believe that every man, should be given an opportunity to get Oil tho land who wanted to, but lie went'with; them no further than that. '- He approved of the Bill gonerally, and hoped that the Government would encourage settlement of tho land.

Criticism by Mr. Herries. Mi HEltltlES (Tauranga) thought it was an oxtraordiriarv thing to vost land iu 1 tho Superintendent, and yet give him no/power. over it. In answer to an interjection by the Prune Minister, Miv Herrios said it was not . certain how far the SupermtendeuU powors were limited.

If tho Bill had been drafted in the Law Drafting OCoe it .would have been more: intelligible. If thore was a general electibn within the next twelve months there was no clause ho would sooner go to the country on than Clause ,24, which placed any farmer's land ■ within' -0 miles of a borough at, tho. mercy of a Government. A similar . clause in Mr. M'Nab s JJiU had raised such a.storm of;indignatiou that it had to be withdrawn. Ho would vote against the clause, but he could liopo for electioneering purposes that it would be carried. • ~ A member :. Use it like the dairy regulations. ' Mr. Herrios: I believe it would be better than the dairy regulations, unless the lion, members pay it is a "bogus" clause.. It was a good thing for the country when some successful candidates at land ballots were bought out by practical fanners. ■ ' '

'The Small Farmers. . Mr. HOGG (Masterton): asked if, any country member would dare to support Clause tA ana then faco his constituents. A more dangerous clause he had never seen. Under it every small farmer from Eketahuna' to Eeatherston, ana from the Tararuas to the coast would be in a state of teonstant. anxiety lest his little iarm should be taken from. him. These were a most deserving class of settlers, people that none would wish to molest. He had every sympathy with tho workers, many of whom were landless, but cvoiithe workers would'not wish to .take away the farms of these people, on which n j°. n y of them had lived all their lives, and, which ought to be protected. If he' supported the clause he would not be able to look these farmers in the faco again. A proposal to cut up tlie small farms was not necessary, m this country. Mr.' OKEY (Taranaki) urged that provisions should not be passed which would injure the small-settler. Tho proposals made in the BiU were far in advance of what was required. J. no reserve of ten acres allowed under Clause 24 would bo of very little use to a . man. iio hoped that the Primo Minister would accept amendments to tho Bill in Committee.

Prime Minister in Reply. . The PRIME MINISTER, In replying, said he had been surprised to hear Mr. ;Hogg politically cursing the workers (Mr. Horn: Oh no) and blessing tho. farmers. _ It m to him very gratifying and • a great relief to find Mr. Hogg making thus divorgion. Land had norer been taken compulsorily near'any of the chief centres in the past, nor had it once been 'taken from farmers ■ snbjcdr to the limitations of the existing Land for Settlement Act. -He «had no objection to striking out tho word "compulsory." The cla\iso only proposed to apply to boroughs and town districts the provision that had previously extended to the cities. Ho had tho most absolute and supreme contempt for statements that had been made 'with the object of making political capital out of the clause. Tho Government would have ample lands offered voluntarily for workers' dwellings around , .it tho clause were passed. -v- .. - / . , Mr/ Massey: Then why do you want a compulsory clause?, ; -v • • ', .• The Prime Minister said that a.number of members would • not realise what was proposed. The reduction' of areas wos carried •further by this; Bill than' -had' ever been done , v...M . ..V

An Expensive System./,' ' Altogether 4725 tenants, including those s at Cheviot, had been put 011 1,129,224 acres 0! land at a cost of ,£5,712,478, an average cost of £1209 per'ihead .. for those pit on tho land. Some members would not recognisp that though the Government -had been quiring estates all along and was negotiating for -them still, in recent . years, and during tho ' last : year vor .. two, ; particularly, land had.reached such a'high price-that' it. was "not.-one in 20, .30, or 40 .estates -that the; Government had any chance of puronasirig at' anything Hike the; price 'demanded.. • . To put 13,000 'settlers on the land, as had been suggested, would-cost over. 20 million-pounds.,all told. : Wat it supposed , that the. Government could go on spending money for this purpose at the rate it had been doing, - or; at the rate that was .required , to put 13,000 people on the land at'ia cost, of 20. millions,' and at the same time carry on its railway and other works? '.It .was-impossible' to -continue' the; 6ystcm of expenditure that had. been followed for the acquirement of land for settlement, while making-other x required provision for the development-of Mr.- t Allen- had. asked why the Government was; making. pro : -vision in this ;Bill for an -expenditure-up- to one million if it did .not intend to go on with the, land for: settlement policy! - The" Govern-: menfc was going that policy'.xlt bad.shaped the course"'foF'land. :i settlement, a.' view .to relieving so'<far : as ''possible, -us, going on the money maxket.. . If the Government obtained onQ. million. it_ would not go on the-London money .market or anywhere else, f<ir another million. The money would be invested in .repurchases :of land. . This was one of the objects of the \jholc of tho series of proposals on tho .land question that had. been placed before" the : House.' It was a great mistake to believe that the Govern-, iment could go on'for an unlimited period of years at tho. rate s of' spending over five million pounds to put 4700 1 settlers on the An attempt was - therefore being made to meet the position in a: rational; and practical way. ;,:j.ho •whole amount invested in railways, open and not opened, 29£- millions, with a population of;one..million. • Before• 20 millions could be spent on land settlement, it- was necessary, to get. that .20' millions. - .'

Curtailment of Borrowing. ' The' return' of land' settlement; asked' for-.by Mr. Massey had been abolished; three years ago, because the particulars could not bo accuraul\ given. -It; was' no use >■ acquiring land for .workers near the: towns "if theycould not got the money, to put'* a homo on it. This could be got now from the Advances to Workers Departrnent,; and authority was, being asked to pioride a larger sum/tor this purpose. 1 Mr. -Massey,: You don't.intend; to -lend on these classes .of'land? '.. v . ;' -■; . : The Prime Minister:' Why not? _. v _. ' , ' : Mr. 1 Masseyr There.is .no- provision to-tins effect in the State Guaranteed Advances Bill, i The Prime Minister said there was'provision, in oue of, the; Bills to, enable moneys obtained in'that way to ; be used -to enable settlers to get homos. There was no proposal to'.. pledge the freehold 'estate" of the colony, and the , fullest publicity would be given to'• the financial operations under the Bill. It shou.ld be the aim of the Government not to go*on the ' London money market for any -mort••.•money than- was essential.' Owing to the recent increase in.the. cost.of land it was necessary , to 1 reduce the areas purchased and disposed of to. settlers. Without a change of svstein.it; would not be possible to carry on land settlement at anything like the expenditure of thcaast-few : years on. account o£ the monetary- obligations it involved. . : V. :; , . In reply to'an.interjection the.Prime.Minister. repeated that he had 110 objection to. leaving out the word "compulsory" in Clause 24. ■ Mr. Massey said that, the return ho had referred to was printed Jn the Land Department's report, last year,' but was not" contained in the reiort this year.:

• LAND SETTLEMENT FINANCE BILL. The PRIME MINISTER then . .moved. the third'reading of the Land Settlement finance Bill. 1 : Mr. MASSEY.6aid ho would liko to say a few words on the measure/as he Was uiavoidably absent when it was discussed in Committee. Ho believed thoroughly in tho principle, and wished that'it would-be attended with success. , It was his opinion, -however, that tho minimum and' maximum ,_areas 'should have, been varied. Tho minimum of 50 acres was too high as a minimum, especially in suburban or' semi-suburban districts,, whilst : tho maximum of 200 acres was,too low in back.;country.

Mr. HERKIES (Tauranga) also' thought un alteration should lmve been made with reference to the areas. Jle and other Oppositionists had supported tho provision simply because they did not want the Bill to be dropped. Personally, he was'getting-ti'red of helping the Government against a proportion of its followers. Those who assisted the Government in passing a Bill should have sbmo say in shaping it. (Laughter.) . .. Mr. Allen (Bruce), Mr. Buchanan (Wairarapa); Mr. ■'•'• Scott (Tuapeka), Mr. «Guthrie (.Oroua), and Mr. Hino (Stratford) also briefly discussed • the Bill. ....

The PRIME MINISTER, in the couiso.of his reply, ■ referred. in particular to the remarks made by Mr. Herries. He declared that, if a party could not support its leader, it was not worthy of the name of party. If tho Government had not tho confidence of its party, ho did not want to continue in. office:for 24 hours. As a matter of fact, if Mr. Herries had not been on : tho wrong side.'of politics ever since ho had been in Parliament, ho would most certainly have made a great namo for himself in politics. The Bill was then lead a , third time and passed. , • . • The House at this stage (12.50 a.m.) then adjourned.- ■■'. • • ' '~...

A CONTINUOUS MINISTRY.

" Has it occurred to membors that this is a continuous Ministry f" asked Mr. T. E. Taylor yesterday. As a youngster, ho had admired tho fight which Grejy Ballauco, and others uiiido for tho' destruction' of a coniiniuius Ministry. " For eighteen years wo havo had 'a continuous Ministry in power,"procotided Mr. Taylor. " The Liberal party has' never nominated a single member to a Cabinet for eighteen yean," . "