THE HANDS FOR SETTLEMENT BILL.

Evening Star, Issue 9472, 17 August 1894, Page 2

THE HANDS FOR SETTLEMENT BILL.

ißtowißi shttAft j igjf; * [FROM Reporter.] August 17. Members gave&emselves up lust night to the consideration': of the Lands for Settlement Bill in" committee. The first lauuc was broken over elHuso 3, which deals with :the constitution of the board of purchase; and which furnished a discussion extending over nearly three hours, and finally resulting in the. defeat by. a head of one of the Minister of Lands* proposals—vis., for the inclusion of the member for the district on the board. The issue was raised by Mr 0. J. Smith moving to strike out the words “ member for the district” from the list of persons constituting the board of land purchase commissioners. Sir Robert Stout pointed out that there might be two members of the board in cases where there were Maori members. Captain RusseLl said that very few members of the House • would accept so invidious a task, and in case of their refusal the board would be inactive.—Mr Buchanan having spoken in protest of the provision, his bSte noire , in the person of Mr Hogg, rose and said that if a member, such as the member for Wairarapa, were called on to sit on the board and,to burst up large estates it would be like asking a man to hold a post mortem examination on his own living carcass.—(Roars of laughter.)—Mr M'GowAN-olaimed that no better board could be constituted than the one proposed In this clause, as none could have a better local knowledge than the district member of the House or the county chairman. —Mr Russell (RiccartOn) said that they Were commanded to accept the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill, on the ground tha,t the Legislative Council might throw it out if it differed from last year’s Bill. Yet this clause was different from last year’s Bill, and so it was offering, a premium to the Council to kill the measure. Manv members of the House, including himself, were not fitted to occupy seats on this board.—The Minister of Lands said that ho was prepared, to take the opinion of the House on the constitution. of the board. He would divide the House on the question, and if the House went against him he would accept the decision. Last yep,r the cry , was that the board was to. be constituted entirely,©! Government servants,, and on thinking the ipatter over he had thought that the member for the district and the county chairman could be well trusted to perform the duties efficiently and well. He was surprised that those who had clamored to “ trust the people ” should be Unwilling for the purchase board to be so constituted. A suggestion had been made that the stipendiary magistrate should be one of the members of the board, but he strongly opposed that.—Mr M‘ Lachlan combated the argument that members for a district might be under the thumb of Ministers, saying that the Government would have no control over the members for a district. —Mr Duncan said that the success of the Bill depended upon the constitution of the board being left as provided in this measure. —Mr Montgomery opposed the inclusion of the member for the district on the board, not for the reason that he could not be trusted, but because it was not fair to call upon members to fulfil duties that would bring abuse upon them from one side or another, and would lead to much recrimination. Public men had to stand enough abuse already without that. —Mr Buchanan said that the members of the House were not elected to fulfil such duties as tins.—Mr Mill said that members of the House already occupied scats on the land boards, and, as usual, gave satisfaction.—Mr Macintosh said that the member for the district would bo able to give most valuable information to the other members of the board. He thought this the best feature of the board.—Mr O’Regan said it was a most awkward position to place members in. The member for the district would not be placed upon a licensing bench. This appointment would lead to members being open to charges of political corruption and of buying support. —Mr Allen said that the board could not be moved into action except by Minister, and it was the member fot the district who moved the Minister. For that reason it was undesirable that the member should be on the board.—The Hon; Mr, Reeves said that if the members for the district were unfit to sit on the board let them abolish the democracy. The member for the district was elected to the House as a man fit to take part in all public affairs. Were they to assert the principle that nobody was fit to take part in public affairs unless he was removed from public pressure?—Mr Pirani favored an elective board in preference to the one proposed in the Bill.—Sir R. Stout said,that they were setting up a new qualification for country members. The test for a constituency would then be whether a man was fit to value land. Was the board to be judicial or political? If judicial, why elect a politician ? The member for the district would be placed in a mostuufairposition. Be he pure as ice or chaste as snow he would not escape calumny,—Mr Thomas Mackenzie supported the Minister’s proposals, and said if he had been a member of the Board when the Pomahaka was purchased there would have been no occasion for any committee of investigation. The member for the district should have more to say in matters relating to his district than he had at the present time.—After much further discussion the division was taken, and by 33 votes to 32 it was decided that the words “ member for the district” be struck out of the clause. The following was the division list

Ayes. —Messrs Allen, Bell, Buchanan, Button, Carncross, Crowther. IDuthie, Earnshaw, Eraser, Graham, Green, Hall, Hall-Jones, Harris, Heke, Hogg, J. W. Kelly, Lang, Massey, M'Guire, M‘Nab, Mitchelsou, Montgomery, Newman, O’Regan, Pirani, G. >V. Russell, W. R. Russell, G. J. Smith, Stout, Te Aq, Thompson, Wilson. Noes.— Messrs Buddy, Buick, Cadman, Carnell, Carroll, Collins, Duncan, Flatman, W, Hutchison, Joyce, w. Kelly, Laruach,'Lawry, T. Mackenzie, Mackintosh, Maslin, M'Gowan. J. M’Kenzie, 11. M'Kcnzic, M'Lachlan, Meredith, Mills, Morrison, Parata, Pinkerton, Reeves, Seddon, E. M. Smith, Stevens, Steward, Tanner, Ward. No pairs were recorded.

Mr Button next said that he was going to propose that the words “stipendiary magistrate ” be inserted—(loud cries of “ No ”)—but so much time had already been wasted that he would not move the amendment.—Sir R. Stout then moved to strike out “ chairman of the county,” and, without discussion, the motion went to a division, and was carried by 32 to 26, the Ministers of Lands and Justice and the Treasurer voting for the retention of the words ; while the Premier, the Minister of Education, the Hon. Mr Carroll, and the Government whips Voted with the majority. The spectacle of the members of the Cabinet being divided in this Ministerial manner was the subject of much amusement.—The Hon. Mr M'Kenzie asked the House not to pass the clause. After consideration as to who could be put on the board, he would recommit the clause. It would never do io have only the Surveyor-General, the Commissioner of Taxes, and the Commissioner of Crown Lands for the district on the board.—The Premier suggested that a way out of the difficulty was to have elective land boards, the chairman of which would be a member of the purchase board. Thus the people would have representation.—Sir R. Stout was of opinion that the board need not have more than the three men now left in the clause.—The Minister of Education, in explanation of his vote, said that the repreaentativeaof the people having beenstruck out it appeared to him that the representatives of property should also go.—The Minister of Lands (as a slap at Mr Pirani) said that he would take the vote of (he House as an indication that no member of the House should in future be appointed to laud boards.—As midnight approached (he discussion on clause 3 languished, and the next clause was taken. An amendment by the Waste Lands Committee giving the Minister authority to direct the board to negotiate for properties was passed.—Mr G. W. Russell moved as a subsection that land adjacent to large centres be procured for artisans; but the Minister of Lands said that the principle of the Bill, it being to purchase land for settlement, embodied that. He had tried to buy land near the cities,- but the !)rices asked were toohigh bo enable it 6>|l)e eased at low rentalato artisans.—MrEAßNSßAW said that the city members were sup.

porting tilts Bill so that those working in the towns might bo able to get on to sub* urban lands .with Ibcir families* —The motion Was rejected by 47 to Id. A new subsection Waaptoposed by Captain hicreaslng the area Jb|f the IjraUtv Which shall hot be taken oomputeorily+4p cose'an owner has children) by SQO awes additional of first class land* 1,000 acroripf second class, or 2,000 acresdf pastoral for each child.—This was'lost'by 32 to 15. s The member for Hawke’s Bay then moved persons were bona fide partners In the occupation of land, they shall be each treated as if their property wore split up into individual holdings.* 4 —The Minister of Lands and others objected, for the reason that it Would lead to jobbery and tend to frustrate the provisions of the Act.—The proposition was lost on the voices.

The clause then passed, and progress was reported, the House rising at two o’clock. After the telegraph office closed this morning the Minister of Lands moved an amend* ment to clause 6 (classifying land by money values) first class, land to 'be fit for agriculture, of not less than £5 an acre in value; second class, mixed agricultural and pastoral, between £5 and £2 10s } and third class, purely pastoral, not more than £2 10s an acre.—Sir R. Stout advised the Minister to stick to his Bill, as these values would land him in trouble. He also objected to the new clause being brought down without having been prints.—Mr Allen took exception to any attempts-at classifying land in this manner.—Mr, Bell said it was.impossible at that hour of the morning to discusasuch a question,-and stated that any obstruction to the Bill - had come from Ministers outside of the House. —Mr G.-W. Russell said that .this -was introducing an element of locality and situation, which was foreign to the Bill. Captain Bussell asked the Minister to report progress in order to give time for the consideration of the amendment, and he moved accordingly, but was defeated by 33 to 19.—The Minister said that, seeing that the House was not prepared to accept the value classification, he would withdraw the amendment and stand by the original clause. —Mr M‘Nab pointed! out .that, people in Southland would be able to keep 2,000 acres, who with the proposed definition of the clause would only get 1,000 acres. £4los was the highest value of land therefor unimproved land that would grow wheat, while £3, was a very general value.. So far as his district was concerned, he approved of striking; out the value classification.—Mr Montgomery defended a money basis for classification.— Mr Buchanan spoke for delay, as did the Premier, who said that the question could be brought up again. When the new subsection 4 of clause 6 (which compels (he Grown te take a whole estate) was under discussion, Captain Bussell moved a proviso that after the board had fixed the value of the remainder of the land not taken compulsorily the owner may elect to retain it if he thinks that the value placed on it be too low. A division was called for, with this result: — Ayes 8, noes 35. Mr G. W. Russell next moved that where the land was situated within .five miles of Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch, and Dunedin the limitation of acreage shall be 500 acres, which was agreed to. Progress was then reported, the Premier stating that in consequence of the late sitting the conimittees would not sit to-day, nor would questions be answered, as more progress would require to be made in the afternoon. The House rose at 3.45 a.m.