AN AMENDMENT.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1524, 21 August 1912, Page 6

AN AMENDMENT.

MOVED BY MR. CRAIGIE. IN FAVOUR 01? THE LEASEHOLD. Mr. ,T. CRAIGIE (Timavu) said that tho debate was'the slowest and dullest that ho had listened to for three sessions. Mr. Craigie advocated alxdition of tho Upper House. It was onlly an imitation of the Houso of Lords, and the House of Lords in time would go. In place of the Upper House ho would set up an advisory oouncil, consisting of two or three judges or of half a dozen experts. 110 did not approve the proposal to discontinue cooperative works. It would be a good thing to give workers homes in tho country. It would be very wrong to import an expert to deal with tho railways., Thero were any number of men in the'country who could run the railways to great satisfaction if they were given an opportunity. Ho believed that the railways wero very well run now. The railways should bo run for the people it'll the time, but they should pay interest and working expenses. New Zealand had'a staff of railway engi-ne-el's of whom it could be proud. On the election platform lie had 1 been'strongly in favour of an increased graduated land tax. Ho would havo been- glad to see moro radical proposals put forward than wero contained in tlio Budget. Large estates were retarding tho progress of tho country. Concluding, Mr. Craigio emphasised, the value and importance of "land settlement and the value of tho New Zealand climate as a national asset. All parties should join to promote settlement. A vigorous prosecution of public works and a judicious immigration policy were also required. Recently an agent in Timaru had vainly endeavoured to meet thirty npplieations for farm labourers. It was necessary also to encourage tho immigration of domestic servants. A rigorous land policy was wanted, and more people must be brought out oud put' on tho land. In his election campaign he had put forward three main planks: Abolition of party government; . abolition of the Upper House, and leasehold. He had been twitted by some people becauso ho had a bit of freehold himself. It had been said that ho could not be sincero in being a leaseholder. He did not wish to debar any man from being a freeholder, but when tho State borrowed money to buy land from private people or from the Natives that land and Crown land should bo retained for the people of New Zealand. Mr. Craigio enlarged' at some length _ upon the advantages of endowments, citing many instances in support of his contention that not an aero of national endowments should bo sold. On the platform in Timaru ho had pledged himself to divide tho House at the first opportunity on the leasehold policy. In Timaru there were many followers of Mr. Massoy who agreed that Crovin lands should not be sold. He would carry out his pledge. Rather than not stand ex fall by what ho believ.ed to be right ho would go out of public life altogether. Whatever was done by Mr. Massey's Government or any other Government he would support it if he believed it to be in the interests of Hi© peo-ple. Ho moved:— ,"That in the opinion of this House the time has arrived when the national estate in land should be rigidly conserved, and that hereafter no land of the Crown shall be alienated other? wise than by way of the renewable lease, with periodical revaluation of •rent." Mr. J. COLVIN (Buller) seconded tfto amendment. The PRIME MINISTER asked whether ■ he was to understand that the amendment just moved came from the Loader of tho Opposition or with his advico and ; approval. >' Mr. Craigie: I think that is a very i proper question to ask, and it is my ■ fault that I did not explain my position. . I have done this entirely o.n my own. i Mr. Russell: Knew nothing about it. : Mr. Wilford: Didn't even tell us. i Mr. Craigie repeated that he had acted > on his own initiative. No one on his s side of the House had known anything i about his intention.

' THE MEMBER FOR OTAKI

APPROVES OF THE AMENDMENT. Mr. J. ROBERTSON (Otaki) said that lie approved the amendment moved by the member for Timaru. He added that ho believed he was the only member whom Jlr. Craigie had informed of his intention to move the amendment. Jlr. Craigie had told him of what he intended to clo only half aiu hour earlier. Tho policy of the Government, Jlr. Robertson continued, should bo to encourage settlement along tho lines of communication rather than to send poople into the remote back-blocks where it was difficult to provide means p.f communication. The member for Tauiiiarunui had told (ho House about the hardships endured by the settlers in the remoter parts of' his district. But, in tho Taumarunui district there were large blocks of privatelyowned land, well provided with means of communication, and eminently suitable for . subdivision. "U'hat he would urge was that the land nearest to tho cities should be settled more closely, and made productive. He had no objection to an occupier of land having the freehold of his laud if ho made the best use of it, and recognised his responsibilities to the rest of the community, there could be little objection to the freehold tenure. Speaking of the dairying industry he said that under the iviilking-on-shares system the share received by the worker had decreased from 50 per cent, to 33 per cent., or even 25 per cent. Ho recognised that the land had increased in value, but this was because the products had increased in value, mainly because of tho demand for them in the markets of the world. This being so, why should one section of the community absorb all the accrued benetits. The fact was tint high land values were heing maintained by ciheap labour. Jlr. Speaker interrupted to say that the honourable member was transgressing the limits fixed for speakers when discussing an amendment on a specific motion that the House go into Committee. The amendment dealt with land tenure only, and the speakers must confine their attention to this subject alone unless the Prime Jlinister would accept the amendment as a no-confidence motion. Mr. Robertson asked whether the Premier has accepted this amendment as a no-confidence motion. .Mr. Speaker: 1 haven't heard him say so yet. Mr. Robertson: Jlay I ask him whether he dots fo now? Tho Primo Jlinister: No, sir, he may not. Jlr. Robertson ■ confessrd himself somewhat nonplussed, and snid he had no idea when ho rose to speak that'tlu l nmeudluent would limit the subject matter of his epecch.

NOT A TEST QUESTION. BUT A USEFUL DIVISION, Mr. T. jr. WILFORT) (Hutt) said that the motion, which had come as a surprise to members of the House, might do good, because it would show Hint the question before this Parliament was not leasehold against freehold at all. It would show that there could be 110 test on that question, for the real test question was the settlement of tho land. He ventured to suggest that there were not more than a dozen leaseholders in the whole House, and the division would show that tho Chamber was, as it had long been, a freehold Chamber. THE MEMBER FOR LYTTELTON. A LEASEHOLD APPEAL. Mr. G. LAURENSON (Lyttelton) said I'liat his friend, tho member for Hutt, was a very sanguine man. Mr. Wnfonl had said that the division that night would settle for all timo the question of leasehold or freehold—settle the fundamental question as to whether land should remain in tho hands of the State or pass into private hands. He did not think that any division of this-House would settto so important a question. Tho land question was every question. Mr. Laurenson went on to argue that limitation of area, was incompatible with the freehold tenure. As soon as limitation was applied the freo sale of land was stonned and the right of a man. to sell his land to anyone he pleased was done away with. To-day in New Zealand there wero -10,000people who owned 5 acres or more, and 800,000 landless people. The Leader of tho Government would not contend that people who owned .a quarter of an acre wero landed people. Was no one in the Houso going to get up and say a word for the 'andless people! Mr. Nosworthy: You are counting tho diildren too. Mr. Laurenson said that the leaseholders rere asking tho House not to take tho ast remnant of tlio national estate from lio landless people. If there was one hing that the House should sink any it tie personal difference over it was a deermination to hang on to the rest of Clio tational esta.te. Mr. Wilford had been Uayor of Wellington and chairman of tho Earbour Board. Would he have sold a ;ingle aero of the city or harbour endownents. Ho intended to tight this ques;ion to the end, whatever might happen ■o him. In tho present mad land gamblo t was impossible to get people to listen ;o the facts of the case. Some people said ;hat they were willing to have the leaselold, but that they must have it as a step-?ing-stone to tho freehold. How many itepping-stones were there? Within half i generation not an acre of the national :state would be left. Mr. Laurenson luotcd the experience of Canada, England, ind other countries with intent to supsort his contentions. He stated (hat in listricts of his constituency, where he had uldressed audiences of farmers he had obtained a largo majority in favour of -his contention that the remainder of the national estate should be conserved. A FREEHOLD CHAMPION. BEST FOB EVERYBODY. Mr. G. V. PEARCE (Patea) pointed his first argument for the freehold by reference to a vivid picture Mr: Laurenson had drawn of a tenant in his own county going to a hard-hearted landlord and asking for favours which were refused, This was what they wished to avoid in this country. They wanted no landlords nt all, but a lot of small freeholders. So far as the sale of endowments was concerned, he thought that the sooner there were no Crown lands left tho better it would be for the country. It would then be properly settled, and it would bo productive. The State would not lose its interest iu tho land liecause it was held by someone under a freehold tenure, for land "would remain always, and it mattered nothing whether the State collected its tribute as rent or as taxes. The endowments wero of the roughest and poorest country in New Zealand, and they could be better settled under freehold -tenure than under leasehold, and the land would be mado more valuable by better farming. A farmer who had the freehold made his land his savings bank, but a leaseholder would not put his surplus money into his land. Probably ho would | invest it in mining or some other business he know nothing about, and lose-a great, part of it. It was in the interests of tho tenant and in tho interests of the Stato that Crown tenants should be allowed to ,| acquire the freehold. THE "LIBERAL" POLICY. ACCORDING TO MR. RUSSELL. Mr. G. W. RUSSELL (Avon) said it had always boen a policy of the Liberal" party that of lands thrown open n large portion should .bo settled upon leasehold tenure, but that endowment lands should never be alienated finally. But the amendment to introduce a provision into the Legislature that there should be no tenuro obtainablo from the Crown except leasehold was a distinct departure from tho Liberal policy of the past. That had always been to throw open some lands on,'leasehold, and allow settlers to acquire the freehold of it.. Of late years the amount offered on freehold had consistently been reduced, until now itlhad become almost negligible. If the mover of tho amendment had suggested that of all lands to bo thrown open in the future one-third or ono-half should be reserved for leasing, he would "have had almost general support from the Opposition party: Hut the longer he lived the more certan did be become that land nationalisation was an impossibility in this country. He could not vote for the amendment. MR. DAVEY SURPRISED. "THIS TOOK THE CAKE." Mr. T. H. DAVEY (Christcliurch East) declared that he was surprised at the honourable member for Avon, who had previously declared himself an out-and-out leaseholder. He (Mr Davey) always lmd been a leaseholder, and lie was a leaseholder still. He .could only express astonishment and regret that-'the member for Avon had turned tail on his previous statements. He (Mr. Davey) had seen a good deal of twisting and turning, but this took tho cake. MR. ELL'S VIEWS. WOULD VOTE FOR THE AMENDMENT. Mr. H. G. ELL (Christclvurch South) said that the Prime Minister had always been a timid man about progressive proposals, and he had always foretold disaster following upon the purchase of largo estates, and leasing them out in smaller areas. Facts had shown- 7 that the judgment of the progressive party was justified. He (Mr. Ell) would vote for tho amendment. To the soundness of leasehold, as a good investment from tho State's point of view the Government was already committed by its declaration that the freehold of the endciwmejit lands would not he alienated. Would not the Government increase the endowments to relieve the burden of tho taxpayer? The Auckland "University had nn endowment, but it would not sell it, and so with other local bodies. ABOUT ENDOWMENTS. REMARKS BY THE MEMBER FOR RAGLAN. Mr. R. F. BOLLARD (Raglan) said that the Auckland University had an endowment of 10,000 acres, but owing tc the fact that they could not lease it satisfactorily the revenue from it was only .£2l a year. If it were sold and the proceeds invested in lands near the city the revenue would be ten times as much. Nt sane man would think of selliijg endowments near the city, but other endowments in the back country were valueless for leasing.