THE "WASHING-UP" BILL

Evening Star, Issue 15928, 7 October 1915, Page 3

THE "WASHING-UP" BILL

A CONTENTIOUS CLAUSE FIERCELY OPPOSED. ALLEGED BREACH OF FAITH. [Fnosi Our Parliamentary Reporter.] WELLINGTON, October 7. The Prime Minister last evening moved the second reading of the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal and Public Bodies Empowering Biil. He informed the House that lie would only move the second reading pro forma at present, as the Bill contained over 103 clauses and explanatory notes which he had prepared and had printed, and these would be circulated amongst members. Mr Ell protested against the practice still pursued of bringing down in a 'Washing-up Bill at the cud of the session proposals which should be put before the House in separate legislation. The Bill passed its second reading at 7.48 p.m. without further discussion. THE COMMITTEE STAGE. OPPOSmON AND THREATS. In committee on the Bill, the Prime Minister said that he intended to suggest an improvement to meet Mr Ell’s objection. It would' be necessary, however, for local bodies and others desiring legislation such as usually went into this Bill to have their proposals- before the Lands Committee not later than a month before the end of the session. Every clause could then be carefully looked into. A number of members referred to matters concerning their localities in the Bill, and tho Prime Minister said that if any member took tire responsibility for striking out any local matter ho would not oppose it being struck out. Fifteen minutes later (Mr J. S. Dickson (Parnell) moved to strike out clause 27, affecting an Auckland matter and the investment of the proceeds of the sale of certain land in a particular way.—The clause was retained by 34 to 33.

Mr Ell thereupon declared that if the House was going to vote solid against the desire of members representing the constituencies concerned to have clauses deleted the Bill would not have a rapid passage. The Prime Minister: No threats, because I am not going to take them. (Hear, hear.)

“ lake vour licking,” cried a member to Mr Eli. ’

Mr Anderson: I want to take exception to the words of the hon. member. They are an insult to us all. Mr Ell: “ I was not referring to you.”

Mr Anderson: “You are referring to me, because I voted against the clause.” He argued that he had so voted on principle.

Tho House again divided on clause 30, wliiifii authorises the lessees of certain lands_ in Blocks 9 and 11, Aroha Survey District, Auckland, to acquire the fee simple at the original value.—The clause was retained by 44 votes to 18.

Mr Ell. protested against clause 31, which authorised the acquisition of the fee simple of certain lauds in Te Aroha township. 9he Prime Minister said that a commission, of which. Mr J. Strauchan (late Under-Secretary of Lands) was chairman, had visited To Aroha and inquired into tho matter. Mr Massey read the report of the commission, and said the clause was framed on the recommendation. A deputation of Te Aroha residents had also interviewed him, and .asked for tho provision now in the Act. The land was originally set aside for mining purposes, but ho believed there was no gold there. It now comprised town sections. The intention was that the land should he sold at the present value, not the original. The valuation would ho made as follows:—If the sections were approved for sale there would he deducted improvements from tho present value, and the amount remaining would he the basis of the price. A STONEWALL SET UP.

Air Ell declared that the old principle of Leasehold versus Freehold was involved in the question, and he was not going to agree to the clause. “The clause,” he declared emphatically, “is not going through.” The Prime Alinister; “ Then lam going ■to sit here till Christmas.”

Mr-Ell declared that the Prime Minister was i committing a breach of faith, and he appealed to Sir Joseph Ward, who went oa to the Treasury Benches on the distinct understanding and with the distinct promise that legislation of this sort would not come down. “ That promise,” he cried, “ has been broken, and we arc faced now with the fact that the National Government are going to vote with the Prime Minister.” This was a contentious question which had no aught to come up. The supper adjournment here intervened. When the House resumed Mr Poland explained the position regarding the naming leases as he understood it. The Prime Minister stated that the “Washing-up” Bills had never been policy measures with him. The people of Te Aroha. seemed obsessed with the idea that the place would never go ahead until they had the freehold title. That was tho reason why a deputation had come all the way down from To Aroha to interview him, and the reason why the clause had been inserted. It did not matter to him in the slightest if the clause was talked out. Mr Webb and Mr Anstey suggested that the clause ho held over for a year to enable full information to be obtained regarding the leases. The Hon. W. H. Herries remarked that if the residence were granted the freehold they would be able to launch out and make the place a proper tourist resort. _ “ I have never known a more contentions W r ashing-up Bill than this one.” said Mr Poole, and it was only fair that the members should have a chance to analyse the position properly before they were asked to pass such 'legislation as that proposed. Ho'-suggested that the clause be. held over. Dr Thacker ; “ I may say straightaway that if there is going to be a stonewall I am prepared to stay here for three weeks to assist the member for Christchurch East.” He added that he objected to the methods of the Government Whip, who had just been round advisinv his men what to do. ° Mr D. H. Guthrie : “ That is absolutely wrong.” Dr Thacker repeated that he objected to these tactics. Pie had voted in Caucus for the National Cabinet, and he did so advisedly, because there was to he no contentious legislation. There was sentiment through the country; and he wanted it distinctly understood' that as far as he was concerned there was no Massey Government. MERELY SPECULATION. Mr Dickson (Parnell) thought the- Minister would bo well advised" to hold the clause over. For some months past, ho could not. understand why, much property had changed hands in Te Aroha. Go understood now ; apparently the provision in the clause had been anticipated. THE OPPOSITION STRENGTHENS. Dr Newman considered that there was a craze on to part with Crown land. It would be a perfect crime to part with the freehold at- the present time. Mr Forbes emphasised the desirability op avoiding a stiff fight on party lines. Let the" Prime Minister show national -spirit, and not attempt to bullock the clause through. Mr Ell reminded the members of the Cabinet that when negotiations were noing forward to establish a National Government it was distinctly promised that there was to be no contentious legislation. That was the information given to the members of the Liberal party in Caucus by. the present Minister of Finance. He did not want to say harsh things about the Liberal members in the Cabinet, but if this were persisted in he would never again attend a Liberal Caucus. A wrong was being doiie; a- promise had been vi<> lated in a way for which there was no public excuse. It was not a matter of urgency. There was evidently some speculation going on. . Mr Dicksou ; It has been going on since January.

Mr Pearce: Why not- go to a divi sion ?

Mr Ell replied that it was very well to talk about a division. The matter was 'being dealt with as a party question by the Government.

Mr Hindmarsh said that the .manner in which the Government persisted in pushing the clause through rather knocked one off one’s perch as regards the bona fides of the Prime Minister, who, before the formation of the National Government, had made piteous appeals to avoid contentious questions. The Bill could only be described as outrageous. Mr Isitt said that the House had no right to discuss the clause, and if the men on the other side of the House were men of honor they would get up and protest against it being forced upon members for consideration. The clause was a contentious one, and was not a National Government agreed to upon the distinct promise of the Prime Minister that no contentious clause would be forced upon Parliament? (Hear, hear.) If the clause were persisted on. then the result would be very deplorable. Since the National Government -were formed they had managed to get along very peacefully in the interests of the Empire, and why should such a clause be inserted in the Bill to disturb the spirit of unity that existed ? Mr Sidey (who rose to speak at 11.27 p.m.) urged that a division should be taken on the clause. THE OPPOSITION SUCCEEDS. Fifteen minutes after midnight the Prime Minister offered to withdraw the clause, at the same time stipulating that all references -to breach of faith must also be withdrawn by the opponents of the danse. Sir J. G. Ward said that from his point of view there was no breach of faith in the introduction of the clause. The clause was withdrawn. BILL GETS THROUGH COMMITTEE AND PASSES FINAL -STAGES. WELLINGTON, October 7. After the Telegraph Office closed the House continued its consideration of the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill in committee. At 2.30 a.m. a division was taken on a lengthy addition moved by Mr Wilford confirming an arrangement between the Petone iiorough Council, the Hutt Park Railways Company, and the Gear .Meat Company regarding the Hutt Park Railway. The clauses were added by 31 to 15. Mr Buick moved a series of clauses exempting the Manawatu and West Const Agricultural and Pastoral Association show grounds at Palmerston North from payment of rates. —The clause was rejected on the voices. The Bill was reported at 5 o’clock from committee, read a third time, and passed.