PARLIAMENT

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume LXV, Issue LXV, 8 October 1913, Page 5

PARLIAMENT

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 7

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

WELLINGTON, Oct. 7. The House met at 2.30. THE JUDICATURE BILL. The Judicature Act Amendment Bill was introduced by Governor's Message read a first time, and referred to the statutes Revision Committee. '■■ '"' THE LAND BILL. : The.debate en the second reading of' the Land Bill was resumed by Mr Okey,. who defined freehold as a powerful magnet to attach people to the land He commented on the liberal provisions of the Bill, which would greatly facilitate Settlement. Mr J.-/C. Thomson said that the 1 rime Minister was not always in favor of closer settlement. He quoted Hansard to show, that if he had his way the j Lands for Settlement Act would never have become law. His Bill was now carrying out everything which he had so'strongly condemned in .1894. Mr Anderson agreed that drastic legislation was necessary to break up big estates. That legislation could only take the shape of a graduated tax because the buying up of estates could not go on with profit. There was not sufficient in the Bill to bring about a sub-division of first-class land. He strongly deprecated the proposal to dispense with residential conditions. _Mr McCallum attacked sub-clause 2 of section 48, which, he declared, gave the freehold at the original value, which he would vote against. He was an ardent freeholder, but it was not honest to the great bulk of the people of the dominion to put a purchasing1 clause in existing leases. He gave notice of an amendment that.'no State money be loaned to assist any settlement tenant to acquire, the freehold. Mr G. Witty traced the concessions made to settlers by -past Liberal Governments. While the names of Rolleston McKenzie, Seddon and Ward would be handed down as men who tried to give settlers a chance in life, that" of Massey would go down as one who sold the birthright of the people. The ■Government had just as much right to give lessees of private lands right to acquire" the freehold. To be consistent the freehold of national endowment should be parted with just as the freehold of settlement lands was being sold. Mr G. V. Pearce contended that the -Hicy of the Government was to settle the country in small freehold. The tendency was for our population to increase in the towns and not in the | country. Clause 8 would tend to 6heck that inequality by getting town boys on to the land. National endowments were in some cases blocking settlement, and to get over that difficulty exchanges would have to be made, 'but he admitted that negotiations would have.to be handled with a good deal of caution. The Bill was one of the best ever introduced into the House, and would be approved by all the country. Mr G. Laurenson denied' that the country would endorse the . Bill, and challenged the Government to meet him i;j any of the cities on the question. Sir W. Buchanan said that the giving of the freehold meant that instead of the capital of the land belonging to the foreign money lender, it belonged to the occupant. The Bill was an extension and an improvement on the existing law so far as taking land for settlement was concerned, but he hoped that the Government would declare that the lands first acquired under the compulsory clauses should be unimproved land. The man who did not improve his lands should be the first to suffer. Mr G. W. Russell said that the duty of providing land for settlement would tax the greatest statesmanship the country could produce. The Lands Report showed only 100,000 acres of first-class land now remained to be dealt with under the ordinary law. Under these circumstances the Liberal Party had been driven to adopt a lands for settlement policy. When he heard the contemptuous terms in which the leasehold principle was spoken of by some members of the House, he wondered whether those members really knew what the condition of the country was twenty years ago. He had no objection to holders of 999 years' leases getting the freehold. They practically had the freehold now, and the moment they acquired a Crown grant they came under the Land Tax. The Government was not logical in not giving the freehold to holders of endowments. As a matter of fact there was very little freehold land in the Dominion, as was proved by the fact that out of the 40,000,000 acres only 16,000,000 were freehold. There was a disparity between land and owners, and as our population was growing every year, the question of how to put the landless men on the land was as acute as ever. The i Bill did not settle it. The future land policy of the country would go in the direction of replacing the sheep-grower iby the dairyman. All our policy should be directed to that end. He looked forward to the time when we would count our dairy factories not by hundreds, but by thousands. When they did that they would be following what was clearly our destiny. Mr Scott said that there was plenty of land for the young man who was anxious and willing to get it, and even at present prices he held that he could make a good living. He considered that the Bill was an admirable one in many resp_ects. He would not say ft was perfect, because there were several things in it which he disagreed with. Mr Herries said that it appeared to him that criticism had been levelled at the policy of the Bill, rather than at the Bill itself. The policy embodied in the Bill was to give every leaseholder of Crown land an opportunity of obtaining the freehold. The man on the land would look on the opponents of the Bill as people retarding the progress of the country. It was recognised that New Zealand must be cut up into small freeholds. It was the intention of the Government to bestow some attention on the land of Hawke's Bay. He was convinced that the principles of the Bill would commend themselves to the country generally. Mr G. Forbes said that he recognised that the land tenure of the country had changed under the present Government. He would vote against the Bill, and would use every endeavor to safeguard the public in connection with the proposals contained in the Bill. What the Government should put its mind to was the sub-division of large estates, not small ones. The debate was adjourned, and the House rose at 12.55 a.m.