THE LAND DEBATE. ANOTHER DAY WASTED. A THIN HOUSE.

Evening Post, Volume LXX, Issue 59, 7 September 1905, Page 6

THE LAND DEBATE. ANOTHER DAY WASTED. A THIN HOUSE.

The discussion on the land tenure question, arising out of the Premier's proposals and the Leader of the Opposition's amendment thereto, was continued when 2ie House mot last evening. Sir J. G. Ward said he contended that everyone must admit that our land tenure lystem had been remarkably successful tinder tho Land for Settlements policy. The feeling of discontent among the Crown tenants was due to the members of the Opposition, who had fostered the agitation in the , most unblushing fashion. There was undeniably a- great feeling of ■unrest on tho land question. The Leader of the Opposition had taken a wrong issue in his amendment. If he (Mr. Massey) had taken the opportunity of bringing forward a definite statement of a freehold policy, the many leaseholders in the House would have blocked him, and bro.ught him up "with a round turn, and nothing further could have been done in the session. Members holding very strong views on the leasehold and the freehold must arrive at a reasonable compromise in order to frame good land laws. One should rise above party in dealing ■with a matter of this sort, and one would have to come in the end something in the nature of a compromise to come to something satisfactory and practical. 1 Personally, he had always supported the optional system, inasmuch as this was the system under which the colony had gone on so successfully. A system of a limited freehold was required to be brought into operation in the colony. The House ought, when it w«s desired to meet the requirements of those on the land and those desiring to go on the land, to have the opportunity not merely 'to discuss whether the freehold was the best tenure The Opposition : Bring down your Bill. The Opposition knew, concluded the Minister, that if the Government brought down a Bill in the first instance they would never have got it through this session. There ought to be no feeling and no abusive remarks. That would never settle a great question, and this question could only be settled after mature consideration. Mr. Wm. Fraser denied that the feeling in favour of the freehold had been manufactured by the Opposition. It had been held by the settlers for a long time, and the agitation for the freehold would not die out, but would increase as the years- went on. It was absurd to hare an optional system if tenants were not allowed to make use of it. He did not expect that a Land Bill would be brought down this session — nobody expected it. They had had a right to expect the Government to come down with a clearcut issue. There had been no precedent for the Premier's action in submitting his resolutions. Why did he not bring down a Bill? — if it were not approved 1 by amajdrity of the House, it would be thrown out, and if approved, it would pass. Personally, he believed in the leasehold with the right of purchase, and in granting tenants under lease-in-per-petuity the freehold at a capital value based on the rental, and on the payment of the one per cent, difference and with a restriction as to the area purchasable by any one tenant. Mr. Flatman, amid derisive laughter, said theiXahd'-Commission report was a valuable document, and he defended the Commission at some length. He would support a system of allowing tenants- to pay off a part of the capital value of their land in order to reduce the rent, 'but he would not go so far os proposing (to give tenants the right of acquiring the freehold at the original value of the land. Mr. Millar said that if Mr. Massey's motion, had been to prohibit the freehold he would have walked into the lobby with him* against the Premier. The freehold had in the past been sold in such large slices that they had " to be bought back by the Crown at .a price many times greater 'than it had been so.'d fo* If it was right that the Crown tenants should be given the freehold at the original value, it should bi right for the Crown to resume any estate whatever at the original value paid for it. It was not necessary to go outside the colony to discover the result of the freehold in the direction of building up large estates, for 193 people in this colony owned between them 4,405,676 freehold acres. There were 861 people owning land valued at £22,000,000 out of a total freehold value of £70,000,000. He would not be in a, position, ■when the resolutions were considered in committee, to rake part in the discussion, but if he were in his place as a private member and were not Chairman of Committees, he would stay fighting for three months before any proposal in the direction of the freehold went through Parliament. He hoped the Government would not acquire another estate until the lease-in-perpotuity under the Land for Settlements Act was done away with. Fifty years was a long enough lease for land for settlement, though, a longer term was proper for land in the bush. The Crown tenant should have the same obligation to pay land tax as any other holder of land in the co.ony. He hoped that if a Bill came down this session,- those who, like himself, opposed the freehold would take every care that nothing in the nature of the granting of the freehold would go through until the people of the country had so directed. Mr. Hawkins referred to the encouragement given to "the land reformers" in their campaign several mouths ago, and contrasted their earnestness and consistency with the Premier's change from his firm leasehold attitude of last year and his attitude as act out in his speech of Thursday night. He attributed the agitation in favour of the freehold to the fact that the Crown tenants believe, looking at the political views of the opponents of the freehold, that at any moment a Fair Rent Bill will be introduced. While he admired the earnestness of the genuine advocates of the leasehold, he did not admire the Premier, who was prepared to sacrifice the principles he had always advocated in the past. He quoted also from beeches by the Premier at Fair'.ie and Aewtown last year to show that he had pledged himself absolutely to the leasehold, and said the Premier's attitude throughout was in keeping with the duplicity he had always adopted when dealing with the land question. The Minister for Justice also spoke. He indicated the Government's defence of its attitude by claiming that the minds of the people were not fully educated to be able to know which was the best tenure for the interests of the whole community. Twenty-five members were all who had Bufficient courage to listen to the Minister's speech, and of these three were wound asleep. Two of the latter woke up during the speech and immediately left. ' ' Mr Lang was the next speaker, and de< rceri tuat he was absolutely unable i! sin what the Minister for Justice * . !• eh advocating. The desire of tho GovMsiment wa» not, as some of its ifc-mbsrs hDtl claimed, to educate the people, but t* what the people •wanted, and to mark time until they fonnu out.- Ih amendment introduced \fj the' Leader of the Opposition last

year on the land question was not nearly so strong as his amendment to the Premier's motion on the present occasion, yet the Premier had not taken the latter as a no-confidence motion, though he took that line last year. The Premier had made all sorts of motions • no-con-fidence motions in the past. The fact was the Premier was afraid — he never accepted a no-confidence motion unless he had a, very ' large majority at his back. Mr. Buddo, speaking to a thin House, urged that any proposal for revaluation had been in' the interests of the settleis, and contended that they could at present do very well without a Fair Rent Bill. If the Crown tenant had the option of the freehold, he would be able to borrow more than under the lease in perpetuity. Mr. Buddo's opinion appeared to be that the way out of the present difficulty would be to allow Crown tenants to pay off a portion of the capital value of their holdings. His belief was that the late' Sir John M'Kenzie was in favour of a thirty years' lease, but that he accepted the 999 years' lease as the best he could get. There were eighteen members shortly before midnight, 4 when Mr. Buddo was volubly addressing the House. His point was understood to be that the House should agree upon 6. form of tenure which would be in the best interests of the country. ' Mr. Donald Reid, speaking to an almost empty House 'at midnight, was understood to bo an ardent freeholder, holding that a man who farmed the land he owned would do greater justice by it than if he only held it on lease. Mr. Witty was against the 999 years' lease, and contended that a 33 or 50 years' lease with the right of icnewal was good enough 'for anyone. There was not a quorum present when Mr. Witty was speaking, but in spite of that he expressed the opinion that the occupation with right of - purchase was the best tenure. "There's nothina like the freehold, 1 ' was the opinion he confided to seventeen members, and not one of them even said "Hear, hear." He went on to say thdt he would give settlers any tenure they liked, but when they once selected a tenure they should stick to it. Mr. Vile followed at nearly 1 a.m., ■when trfere ivere seventeen members present, none of whom appeared to take any interest in the proceedings. The mystery was, why they stayed? He urged that the Crpwn Lands Rangers should be appointed by the Land Boards and not by the Government, and that the one desirable tenure was occupation with right of purchase. Mr. Vile concluded about 1.15 a.m., when Mr. Sidey truculently moved the adjournment of the debate, and the House sleepily adjourned.