Cabinet Instructions.

Hastings Standard, Volume XII, Issue 5846, 9 May 1908, Page 2

Cabinet Instructions.

MR LANE "SPITS THEM OUT." AN EXTRAORDINARY SPEECH. At yesterday's meeting of the H.B. Land Bo«ird, Mr Lane, having given notice at the meeting held on April 13th last, moved as follows:—" That under secctions 43-5, 49, 201 and 209 of the Land Act. 1885, this Board is appointed to decide whether or not the small grazing lands leased under that Act are suitable for close settlement, and that we cannot accept the instructions forwarded under date December 2lst, 1905. and again under date by the Under-Secretary for Lands as Cabinet instructions, seeing that such instructions tend to demoralise the tenants, belittle the law and dummy the Board." Speaking to his motion, Mr Lane said:—That I may always have a record of what I did or did not say in support of this most important resolution, I have set it down here in black and white. It has not escaped my notice that it was necessary for this Board to be reminded from Wellington that these " Cabinet instructions" had been given. I believe they were repugnant to your sense of honour or justice—that for s ime time you ignored them, considering your privileges breached ar.d your usefulness detracted from. I augur well from your hesitation to be dictated to, and from the remark which Mr Groom let fall regarding ttyese instructions the first ti nie I attended your general meeting. He assured me it was surprising what power of veto the Cabinet had over our administrative actions. - I was glad to think these instructions were distasteful to him as well as to you. j Mr Chairman, and Mr Hyde; and 1 propose to show you that on this particular we may gratify our distaste by spitting them out. For they are illegal—they have not th« authority of the people's Parliament—not even the usual dodge of a Governor's Order in Council has authorised them, and they are an infraction of that portion of the lease of grazing run holders which provides under certain conditions for a renewal. Instead of quoting only from the Act of 1885, which you, Mr Chairman, ever zealous to be on the safe side, may tell me has been repealed, I will draw your attention to the fact that all the clauses affecting these leases are repeated in the 1892 Act, though clause 49 of the 1885 Act constitutes us sole judges of the conditions of these leases, even though the Act under which they were granted may have been repealed. Really, gentlemen, I think you will agree with me that the sense and meaning of those sections is char, distinctly applicable to the lease in question. But in case you, Mr Chairman, ever zealous to be on the saf _- side, should presently quote to us from the SCOTCH MIST CALLED THE LAND LAWS and Regulations other clauses apparently of quite contradictory instruction, then, in case it comes to a choice of the pros and cons —which may both be here for the benefit o the lawyers—l will proceed to discuss the inequity of the position we are asked to occupy —the injustice we are instructed to mete out —the ungrammatical absurdity of the instructions which have been issued. And right here I should like to express this sentiment, that while I recognise that the Minister is your chief, Mr Chairman. when you are acting as Commissioner of Lands and attending to the detail business as directed by the Act, I maintain that when you sit on this Board as Chairman, and we the other members with you, we are responsible to no one-but the people of New Zealand ! Now, sir. if the Minister had a general power to override our decisions (as he can yours when acting as Commissioner of Lands), I want to know why Parliament decided that it was necessary particularly to provide in certain cases for reference to the Minister? No such reference before we give a renewal has been provided for with regard to these leases. And, further, is it not necessary that "Cabinet instructions" should have the authority of a Governor's Order in Council which must be gazetted ? Are the members of THE GOVERNMENT SO ASHAMED

of their methods of procedure that they feared to face the contempt which I feel sure Lord Plunket would express when he signed such instructions ? Did they think to bluff you without his authority ? Why are you nominated to this Board ? Why are our expenses paid if we are only a matter of form ? For what purpose has this Board been constituted? Could not the ranger who is appointed by the Gevernment and not by us report direct to the Cabinet and save the country the farce and the exp'ense of our existence? How absurd it is to tell us in one breath that we are to decide and in the next that the Cabinet Will decide. Why, the instructions are not English or even good Scotch. Two negatives, I can understand, make an affirmative, but here we have only an affirmative and a negative, which means nothing. And now for the practical side. 'You have told me to-day, Mr Chairman, that the UnderSecretary is to be here on Monday. I can understand why he is hurrying here. I can understand that J have already put a stopper on HIS WRITTEN INTERFERENCE, and that you will get your instructions viva voce. But I am going to appeal to you personally —you who have grown grey in the service of your country —44 years. I think, you told me. You have seen laws made and repealed, have seen governments come and go, and will again. You mu?t know what is good for the man on the land and what is not. Is it, in your opinion, beneficial,

THIS MINISTERIAL POWER of upsetting our decisions ? What has been the result in the case of W. Couper, of Waikaremoana? After urging upon you again and again the injustice that has been done to him—-

suddenly the man himself appeared to you at our last Gisborne meeting, and represented his case, his extraordinary events, so forcibly that you could see the wrong which had been done. And what prevented us from righting j the wrong there and then? Why the I fact that the Minister had confirmed it and had approved your decision that his lease should not be renewed. What prevented us from giving Mr Lysnar a lease of all that timber he I applied for —an out and out mon.ip >ly I | with white pine advanced to farmers in the last four ye?rs from 7s per 100 to 13s per IOO? Was it the | Cabinet instruction we received or was it our own good sense ? Were the Cabinet instructions clear, consistent or absolutelv contradictory. And what prevented us the other day from settling THE WAIMARAMA DISPUTE ' in what I, Appeal Court 'decisions notwithstanding, still hold to have been the best interests of all parties, saving them from further expense and litigation ? Was it not the stonewall —the stonewall tottering to its fall? And it is tottering, for I have determined to free New Zealand from this accursed thing. One of my pledges to the men who put me on this Board was that "I would minimise Ministerial influence and enable my fellowsettlers to dispense with the expense of solicitors, surveyors and such like.'' And I have that end clearly in view. I say that these leases to tenants of the Crown contain a certain right of renewal. I say that my warrant (and I understand the Premier to say I have no warrant) was signed by some of those leaseholders, and I will not see them made puppets of any partv. My election to this Board was legalised by the people's Parliament. The people of New Zealand sicken of these crooked methods. They are honest, educated, intelligent. If I came to this Board and withheld what I ought to say, then I should feel ashamed of myself, then I should feel that I/was THE PREMIER LIAR IN THE DOMINION.

As it is, I feel that in moving this resolution I am doing my duty, and my duty is your duty, for though J am the elected representative of the tenants, you gentlemen are theii nominated representatives ! We are all on this Board in the interests of the country, and not of any particular Government which may happen to be in power! In what bondage are you ? To whom do you feel your loyalty is due ? You, Mr Chairman, have nearly served your time. You, Mr Hyda. are working for nix, unless it is honour. You, Mr Groom, have, I believe, a wife and family to think of t but the pittance you receive for work on this Board would not provide them with bread and scrape. At what do you value your billets ? Why are you liable to lose them with the first change of Government ? Is not a good name, a reputation for honest independence, a much more valuable consideration ? Is not the contentment of the settlers on the land a more worthy object—the foundation of New Zealand nationality? Shall these methods presently be associated with us all the world over? Is settlement likely to be promoted by THESE UNSETTLING INSTRUCTIONS

which invite disagreement with our decisions ? Supposing that we decide a lease shall be renewed, and a local agitation is created —from interested motives—resulting in a petition to he Government to upset our decision, i put it to you that such agitation, coming before election times for instance, must carry more weight than the just desire of this board to grant a renewal. And suppose we decide that the country is suitable for close settlement and shall be thrown open, but Mr So and So goes down to Wellington, accompanied by some of the many prominent philanthropists swarming in this country, and immediately we get instructions that the country is not to be opened for close settlement, but the leaseholder is to be undisturbed. What then ? Are not we the men with local knowledge the BEST JUDGES OF THE POSITION ?

Then I ask you, if you agree with me to at least put on record your protest by passing this resolution. If you pass it and it is overridden the people will sec to it, for tit- se instructions are an interference with and ai'eration of the original conditions of the lease. Such interference I have been elected to this board to try and prevent. Mr Hyde pointed out that, as the 1885 Act had been repealed by the 1892 Act, the motion was of no effect. He did not consider that the board was there to dictate to the Cabinet. Mr Groom spoke to tVe same effect. There was no seconder, and the motion lapsed.—"Herald."