THE HOUSE.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1197, 4 August 1911, Page 6

THE HOUSE.

ABOUT LAND SETTLEMENT. • DISSATISFIED MEMBERS. THE FAILURE OF THE GOVERN- '■" MENT. The House of Representatives met at i 2.30 p.m. v . On tho Hon. D. Buddo presenting the annual report on the Lands for settlement ' Act, Mr. G. W. RUSSELL (Avon) said the occasion was a favourable one for dealing with tho final dropping by tho Government of its original policy under the Lands for Settlement Act. If the Acting-Minis-ter for Lands were to stato to the House the amount spent in. promoting settlement during tho last two or throe years, it would be found how. small had been the result -as/ compared with tho progress made in settlement in;dajs goho'by. Ho was awarb that largo areas were being taken, and settled in; tho north, but people in the south desired 'chat their own territory should- be opened up, so that the sons of southern farmers should not bo compelled to leave their .own districts, and'tho class- of farming-with which they .were familiar. . ■ -.-.'. .The Portfolio of .Lands. Ho regretted that t'ue portfolio of Lands—instead of being •regarded, as in 'days gone by, as the' most important next to tho Premiership—was now held by the Prime Minister, who was so burdened by other portfolios that it was simply impossible for him to deal. with tho lands of this country as they should be dealt with if settlement was to proceed. It was recognised that, within tho next ton years, not only Crown lands, but also Nativo lands in New Zealand would have beer, absorbed by the demand for settlement. Consequently,' it was absolutely n.-cessary, if pace was to, bo kept with the uomand, that the laws now on the Stat-ute-Book intended to promote land settlement, should be energetically administered. "Wherever there was land that could be purchased and suitably settled, it was tho duty of. the Stato to do so. (Hear, hear.) New Zealand was bound, in the future, to bo a country, of small farmers., In ,frho past the Government had made ono great blunder. Whenever the Government had wanted' to purchase land, there had been a sort of trumpet call; the word had gone .-out that tho Government wanted land—and the price had gone up. Instead, tho Government should employ.a private agent, who would bo able to. get land at a fair price. To a certain extent the Government weret themselves responsible for tho undue , inflation of values of land in New Zealand in tho last few years. (Hear, hear.) It was not nocessary to buy onlyi largo blocks. Areas of SOO or 1000 acres should be acquired, and cut into small holdings, for intensive culture. 'It was this) question of i.ho ueWement of tho land thai, was going to_ give their friends on the other side their opportunity, if anything did. Unless tho Government purHncd n vigorous policy of Settlement duTins the next twelvo months, tho hon. gentleman opposite and his party were going to have an opportunity that they had no right to. If the ' Government would but consider what was going on in tho southern parts of New Zealand, where men wore leaving in-shoals for the north, they would seo that there was a necessity for , a more energetic administration of the lands for settlement law. Enthusiasm Chilled. ' Mr. G. W. FORBES (Hurnnui) endorsed what had been, said by, tho memta for

Avon. So far as lnnds for settlement wero concerned, there had not been Hio progress that there- should have been, l'hey. had been told last session that something would be done. The mutter had-been brought before' th: .Government time and again, but uiiporpiitly no movo was being lnado lo rectify ic. The settlement of people on tint land had been a very large factor in the past success of the Liberal party. lie regrotted to fay that enthusiasm could not siippbrt iteelf on such meagre progress as 'they now had under the lands for settlement policy. Ho would say that the Liberal Government had lost its initiative unless theso things-could'be remedied. Mr. 'A. S. MALCOLM' (Clutha) said that in. his district one or two small estates had been purchased; but in repeated instances the Government had failed in its duty of i-roinpting closer settlement. ■ This was a very serious question, for it was the universal opinion in Urn country at the piesent .time that the Government could not too earnestly pusu on land settlement.

"A Very Nasty Problem." Mr. G. LAURENSOX (Ly'ttelton) said he doubted whether any part of the Dominion Was suffering as much from land aggregation as Canterbury. Hawke's Bay was bad, but Canterbury was worse. The stamina of a nation mainly depended upon rural'districts.-but recent statistics showed that while the town population of Canterbury was increasing,' that of the rural districts wa.s stationary. Tho sons of fanners were finding that they could not. get on the land because it was monopolised. The Government was faced u-itji a very nasty problem. Provisions .designed to promote close settlement were being burked by owners nominally cutting up their estates among their families, The Christchurch "Press" published lately a statement showing tho numbers of different kinds of live stock in a part of tho Akaroa electorate, but there was no mention of the number of men. What did papers like that caro for human beings? They cared for pounds, shillings, and pence every time. . "Their troubles about the labourer!".exclaimed ■Mr. Laurensoii. "Their , troubles about the farmers and their sons! They measure prosperity by • the number pf hogs and horses in a district, nn'd- not-by the number of men, women, and children." The people who were treating this question with contempt should be given by the State a fnir value for their property, and" should be prevented from blocking settlement. The school attendance figures in Canterbury showed that in nearly all the smaller schools the attendance was decreasing. This must be due either to abominable immorality on'.the part of the. people or to land monopoly, and they all knew that the cause' was land aggregation. This was mining Canterbury, and would, ruin New Zealand if it was allowed* to go' on. • Canterbury was very well suited'by.nature for prosperity and close 'settlement'..' . .■, r ■ A Denial. v : •',. '..,.:,' Mr. C.A. C. HARDY- (Selwyn) said that if there, whs -blamo attributable to anyone it was due to- the-Government. He denied that the attendance at the country schools'had fallen' off:' That was certainly hot :tho- case i nthe North Canterbury'.education district,' wherp many of the schools had to be enlarged. Mr. J. STALLWORTHY (Kaipara) said that the increased school in North Canterbury might v ..-be .due to greater vigilance on the-jiart of. the truant officers—(Mr. Hardy:' No fear)— and greater. energy on the part of the North Canterbury Board of Education.. Mr. T. M. -WILFORD (Hutt) Eaid that in his opinion the present state of affairs was due simply to party squabbles and party government. ' He suggested that probably every member of Parliament was" to , blame, because the settlement of land had'btcn overshadowed by tho strife over the ■ question of tenure. Ho asked fqiSa"jrell-defined policy in support'of wliich'tfie House would combine towards ono goa.t at which they were all aiming. It would,be. an effective, reracdy for all the ecoliomic, . industrial, and social problems with which tho country was vexed. . Mr. JENNINGS (Taiimarunui) drew attention to the law ef Belgium, which compels the of land among the family of a deceased owner. Belgium, with its great prosperity, was a standing object-lesson- of the benefits of close settlement. 'Anything the House 1 could do to meet- the situation disclosed by the Canterbury members should be done. I The Wherewithal.

Mr. H. G. ELL (Christchurch South) said that if the Government pursued a more active course of- acquiring estates for settlement, the, indebtedness of the State must be increased. ■ Mr. Fraser: Tou needn't do that. Mr. Ell. said another way was to increase tho graduated land tax, but the member for Wairarapa, Mr. Buchanan, had said the present graduated tax was about as bad as 'confiscation.' Tenure was not , the hindrance to settlement. The great hindrance'was the price the Government had to pay to the owners. One cause of trouble in regard to labour in the country districts was that many of tho farmers employed single men. and boys in preference to married men. They should build cottages on their farms, or the- Government should provide 5-acro holdings' for, workers in agricultural centres. The meu at present could not afford to marry. There was too much buying ant: selling of land instead of working it, and the Government should do something to check that process, jlf the Opposition was in earnest about settling tho land, they must allow x tho. Government to :get the wherewithal. In regard to the Opposition policy, the money paid by Crown', tenants would not be nearly enough to acquire further estates needed for closo settlement.'

Mr. Massey: Try it! ■ • ■ Mr. Ell said they were not going to try it. The settlers would' get along very well if they wero-let alono by political agitators. '■■' Mr. Massey: Hear, hear. Mr. Ell then accused Mr. Mastey of bribery in promising the Cheviot settlers tho freehold at the, original value if the Opposition were put' in power, and advocating the sale of the national, endowments. "I love my work, I love my seat in Parliament," said Mr. Ell, in an excited manner, "but. I would never do a thin? like that for 50 seats. The Leader of the Opposition has done it in order to get on to the Treasury benches." (Laughter and applause.)' • '.. THE TRUE REMEDY. "GIVE THE GOVERNMENT THE ■ SACK." Mr. W. F. 'MASSEY (Leader of .the Opposition) said most of the' Government supporters who had spoken had virtually complained of tho want of activity of the Government in settling' the land. He had been saying tho same thing himself for years, and he congratulated them on coming round to'his opinion. Mr. Ell was wrong in saying the remedy was to give the Government' more money. Tho true remedy vras to givo tho Government the sack. Tho proper thing to'do was to giyo the tenants the option of purchase. The present policy of .acquiring estates wns really malting people outsido tho colony tho owners of our-land, and that would lead to trouble in Uio future. Ho reme;nbered the visit to Cheviot which Jlr. Ell had mentioned. Tho majority of tho Cheviot people on that occasion agreed with what he said. Tho Hon. R. M'lveuzie: Ami they returned a. leaseholder soon after. Mr. M.nssey said tho,people of Cheviot, like those of other parts_ of the eonntry, were finding out the mistake they had made in the matler mentioned by the interjector. It was a very fino thing to talk about the heritage of the people; it was a high-sounding phr.ise, but very often it was quite meaningless. Recent legislation had mado tho lease-in-per-petuity title very much stronger than it was originally. It was jVbv almost as good a tillo a 9 freehold. Tho Stato owned simply tho. amount on which tho settler paid interest, and tho ssttler could not therefore bo asked to pay the Stnto more for tho freehold. To ask him to pay inoro was to ask him to pay again for something ho had already paid for, possibly had paid too much for. Ho thought il likely that a nnmbsr of leasc-in-perpetnily settlers, for sentimental reasons, would ba glad to buy their holdings, but he was not sure that as a business proposition tho opportunity of purchasing would be welcomed. Endowments. Tho statement by Mr. Ell, in reference to the attitude of the Opposition towards endowments, was absolutely and utterly incorrect. Every member, of the Opposi-

tion partv said that no endowments mado prior to 'the year 1907 should be p.irte<! with. This must bo admitted by every member in the House. It was truo, Mr. Massey, continued, amid interjection?, that h« had supported u propo.-nl inado by the member for Hutl during -the previous session, that endowment lands -unsuitable for settlement should be sold, and (lib. proceeds laid out in acquiring new endowments. Mr. Massey challenged any Auckland member to deny that in many instances Crown lands in that province were, being made useless by the spread of the blackberry. Unless settlers could bo induced to take up this land, it would shortly become useless. This would refute statements made, particularly in the South Island, as to the Opposition policy in regard to endowments. If the endowment lands were suitable, and could be worked, let them bo retained. If not, let them bo sold, and-land more suitable for endowments purchased. The Opposition was not opposed to leasehold, but it held'that a man taking up a lease should have an opportunity eventually of purchasing his holding. The same should apply to peoplo living in towns. . Tho Hon. 'D. Buddo: "Would you go on successively selling endowment lands?" Mr. Massey: "I have tried to explain, and I think everybody but tho ActingMinister for Lands understands. I don't think I need repeat my explanation." Town and Country Population. In this country, Mr. Massey went on, there were too many people living in the towns, as compared with the country, and a. problem thus arose with which the Government would have to grapple. Not enough was being done at tho present time to encourage agricultural education. Practically nothing was being done in tho way of training farmers, as was done in Great Britain and Canada. The Lincoln College was a useful institution, but it was only one, and small 'at that. There should be a college, if possible, for each provincial district,, and, at tho least, one for each island. The Agricultural Department cost the country a great deal of money, and was not worth it. The.ro was a lack of trained and capable experts. The Hon. G. Fowlds: "Lincoln-College should bo used exclusively for the training of such instructors." / Mr. Massey said it might be difficult to carry out this suggestion, as Lincoln College was not a Government institution. He hoped the debate would stjr up the Government, while it remained in office, to do its best to expedite settlement, and particularly intense cultivation. Mr. W. H. FIELD (Otaki) said that if any'endowments were sold, the Government should devote the proceeds to purchasing land likely to'go up in value. He was very glad to see a very strong inclination to set up rural courses in the schools of the various towns. Mr. G. WITTY. (Eiccarton) said the discusjiop would let the Government know that more vigour would have to be infused into its land policy. The greatest difficulty at present was the excessive pneo asked for land by greedy owners. No endowments should-bo sold under any circumstances. The South Island-.was entitled to a State experimental farm. Mr. Fisher's Views. . : • _ M t r - £• M-B. • FISHER' (Wellington Central) said he had followed with • interest what an impartial observer might a ™°, st havo regarded.as an indictment ot the party in power by its own members. It was. a reflection upon the Administration that there was only one agricultural college in New Zealand. In regard to this question of agricultural education essons should be taken from countries liko Germany and Belgium, where intense, cultivation obtained. During the pasTtcn years the area.of Crown land had been reduced from' 1G million acres to' 4,282,000 acres. ■'-.. . . Mr. Laurenson: You are wren" •■ Mr. Fisher ■. "The hon. gentleman stands up •■tor the Government returns. Hero they are I" The Government had reduced the area, of the Crown lands by from ono to three millidn acres a year since they had been in office. The hon. member could not deny'it.

Mr. Laurenson: Ho can deny it. Mr. 1-isher then restated his own position on the land tenure, question. He was a leaseholder, but ho would rather have a party ..which.,converted-.Crown lands into ireehaia'hecatise ifijelieved in the principle of freehold, than a party which aid the same thing against its principles. He twitted the Minister for Railways and the Minister for Education with stron" declarations against all sale ofv Crown lands, made by them some/years ago. ,If the present rate of alienation continued the. remaining land would-bo exhausted in two years. He would move as an amendment to the motion before the House:

That this House is of opinion that no legislation affecting 'the lands of the Dominion will be satisfactory if'it does not.provide for the cessation of the sale of Crown lands."

Concluding, Mr. Fisher criticised the cheap money scheme of the Government It had raised the price of land hopelessly Whatever, it might have put into the pockets of poor men it had put hundreds ot thousands of pounds into the pockets' ot the men who needed no such a«istance. '

The Hon. J. A. MILLAR submitted that an amendment which traversed tho whole land policy of the Government was not relevant.. ■•■.--..

The SPEAKER upheld the'view stated by i J- M , lllar aad ' ruled the amendment out of order.

Ministerial Reply,

The Hon. D. BUDDO (Acting-Minister tor Lands) rose five- minutes before tho hour for the dinner adjournment. He cm i ■ ? '1? Canterbury, Otago, and Southland there was not a single acre of Crown land available for sale. The area of Crown lands taken: up for small settlement, plus the area of crazing lands taken up during the last financial' vear was. over two million ac-es. The *G6v ernment purchased during that year land for settlement up to the full extent of tho money voted for the purpose by Parliament; It came ill from members ris presenting districts more fortunately situated that they should resist, tho efforts of the southern members to obtain, some land for the promotion of small ' settlement Ihe Government fully recognised the necessity of keeping up the amount of land available for small settlement. They we-o not interested so much in the'LlP ten--m? a V n tl,e mCT \ wll ° had n° 'and The formal motion to. print-the land lor settlements report was carried on the voices. '