STONEWALL ON THE LAND BILL.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXXVII, Issue 3461, 13 October 1913, Page 6

STONEWALL ON THE LAND BILL.

HOUSE SITS TILL MIDNIGHT ON SATURDAY. ALLEGATIONS AGAINST’ MR. RHODES. MANY CONTENTIOUS MATTERS DISCUSSED. j>K£SB ASSOCIATION TEI.EGBAM.) WELLINGTON, Oct. 12. After breakfast on Saturday the Opposition endeavored to induce the Premier to adjourn, but Mr Massey insisted on proceeding. At 10.30 Sir Joseph Ward suggested putting through clauses to 31 (inclusive), excepting clause 26, which :he Opposition would, not pass. lr Massey would snot agree, and Lie discussion continued.

Mr Massey, in reply to Sir Joseph Ward, pointed out that the difference between the ,’u of 1907 ai'd the present Bill was t—at while tlie then Opposition was figh.ing the firmer for all it was worth, all .he leading members of the Opposition voted for the Government Bill. The «, Opposition must take the responsibility o. '-ejecting his offer to pass clauses to 31, and then adjourn, The Opposition continued to object to aiLameiidraent put in at the instigation of the member for Thames, alleging that his interest in the goldfield lands created a grave political impropriety. At 3.15 Mr Millar raised the point that the amend cent moved by Vr Rhodes was an appropriation of public moneys and could not he introduced by it private member. He moved to take the Speaker’s ruling on the point. On the Speaker resuming the chair Mr Millar pointed out that he did not wish to see power given to a. committee that did not constitutionally belong to it. The land was Crown land, and therefore all rents, fees, etc. derived therefrom must he public money, and an amendment should be brought in by Governor’s message. Mr Massey said Mr Millar was wrong in his premises.’ He assumed this was Crown land. The moneys would only be handed over to the owner when the land became private property, and therefore the clause was not appropriating public money. Mr Russell pointed out that under (he clause the moneys to be paid over to the owner were moneys for something outside the iee simple. The only thing outside the fee simple was minerals, and, therefore, the moneys the owner was to get could only he moneys derived from minerals, which otherwise would go to the Crown. Therefore it was clear that the clause was an appropriation clause. Mr Hanan argued that the clause gave to owners moneys that otherwise would go to the Crown, so that the appropriation was clear. Mr Millar said his point of_ order could he put in a nutshell. His Majesty the King had brought down a message to the House proposing certain definite things. Could the committee go beyond those proposals and attach conditions to them which were not contemplated in, the message? The Speaker said that before he could give a decision he must first ascertain whether the owners would be placed in a better position after receiving the fees, royalties, etc., than before so doing. The Premier admitted that the word ‘•'royalties” should not be in the clause. In ’other respects the State merely acted as a receiver. Mr Russell asked what would happen to these moneys if the sub-clause was not passed. Mr Poland said that without the amendment, fees, etc-., would go to the State. Under the clause moneys would go to the owner. It was an appropriation clause. The Speaker said the evidence before him was exceedingly conflicting. If it could be done he would like to reserice his decision for further consideration. He had no doubt whatever that if the fees, royalties, etc., were to lie something extra to the owner—.and it appeared to him that they would he —then the clause was clearly an appropriation of public moneys. He would, however, like time to look further into the point The House agreed to the Speaker’s deferring his decision. Discussion then took the turn that it was futile to discuss the clause until the Speaker had given his ruling. . As a result of certain remarks made by Mr Laurenson, Air Massey said the charges made against Air Rhodes were so serious that he could not allow them to pass unnoticed. He asked Air Laurenson whether lie would lay on the table of the House the letter he had received regarding the member for Thames. The accusations must be inquired into. Mr Laurenson agreed to table that portion of the letter us Aad read to the uisa« Mr Rhodes characterised the letter as mean and scurrilous. He hoped, the whole matter would be probed to the bottom and that the “name of the skunk who wrote the letter would come out.”

On resuming in the evening the ■Speaker ruled that Mr Rhodes’ amendment would take away from the Crown something it would otherwise have. He therefore ruled that it was an appropriation clause and could not be moved by a private member. Replying to Sir Joseph "Ward, Mr Massey said he would bring down the substance of the amendment by Governor's Message. He proposed to incorporate it in the Bill. Mr Webb contended that the carrying of clause 2d would give away the heritage of the people. It would rob miners of their rights and would enhance to an extraordinary degree the value of mining lands to the absolute detriment of miners. If it became law there would be a repetition of Huntly, liunanga, and Blackball. Towns would be owned by one or two people. 'After considerable discussion cm thequestion of waste of time, Mr Hindmarsh rose and said he considered they would be justified in staying there fighting the clause until they forced a general election.’ As things shaped now they would be parting with national endowments next. After the supper adjournment Mr Speaker was called into the House to ruie on a point as to whether Mr Russell had exhausted his right to speak. • The position, was that the member for Avon had spoken tour times during the debate on clause 2-5, but he contended that one of his speeches was on the question whether an amendment should stand. After a series of versions of the complicated position (all .appearing to differ) Mr Speaker ruled that Mr Rilssell was not entitled to further discuss the question. ' From that point to midnight the proceedings continued on familiar lines.

The Chairman left the chair to resume it at 2.30 on Monday.

MR. RHODES' BLOCK. ROUGH BROKEN COUNTRY. The total area of the Hauraki Pastoral Lands which have been brought into such unusual evidence by the present stonewall in the House comprise au area of at least a quarter, of a mil-' lion acres, of which only a comparatively small portion is at present occupied. The present form of pastoral tenure is a 21 years’ license, which is much less satisfactory to the holders than ordinary leasehold, and for some years there has been an agitation to

have the lands thrown open on the same terms as ordinary Crown lands, the right to all minerals to be reserved to the Crown. A deputation which urged this alteration waited upon the Prime Minister at Thames in January last, and it_ is worthy of note that on that occasion Mr T. W. Rhodes, ALP., who introduced the deputation, publicly stated that he was the holder of one of the pastoral licenses, but that the tenure was not satisfactory. The official description of the block taken up hv Mr Rhodes as appearing ou the "Lands Department’s poster when it was opened was as follows: “Rough broken forest country, eight to eleven miles from Coromandel, and nine to twelve miles from Mercury Bay/’ Mr W. C. Kensington, ex-Under-Secrefafy for Crown Lands, has described the block as follows“I know the country very well. This is so broken and such poor clay soil in most parts and being only pastoral lands, I do not think the area excessive.”