LAND FOR SETTLEMENTS

Lake County Press, Issue 973, 1 August 1901, Page 2

LAND FOR SETTLEMENTS

THE GOVERNMENT BILL. {TSOM THE ETKNDTO STAR'S CORRESPONDENT.] WELLINGTON, July 24. Speaking in the House yesterday afternoon, in reply to the strictures- made in the Council on the debate on the Land for Settlements Amendment Bill, the Premier said that there was only a difference of £2,000 between the amounts paid for the purchase of land for last year and that for the year before. The amount expended last year was £355,000, including land for workmen's homes, and Mr G. W. Russell was wrong in his figures to the amount of £163,572. Mr, Russell did not understand the fact that although a purchase might be made in one financial year the Crown might not be able to take possession until it had entered on the next financial year. He regretted that those who supported land for settlements were being led away by specious argument, and abandoning what they had done before. The Assets Board had the duty to perform of realising to the best advantage, and had the land been forced on to the market the colony would have been a considerable loser, while if they had not sold an acre of land they would, comparing the present with past prices, have been £15,000 to the good. Every

estate had been offered to the Government, but they could only sell what the Government had been prepared to take. No reasonable offer had ever been refused, and the realisation was being carried on on business lines. As to the ballot, he knew of cases where an applicant was backed up by a number of friends; and that, of course, militated against the chances of a man without friends. The land boards knew that, and were not doing their duty in allowing it. If Sir John M'Kenzie had remained on the Government benches, he did not think members of Parliament would have been allowed to remain on land boards. Speaking on the subject of lands for workmen's homes, he said that until these were provided the House would have perpetual complaints, discontent, demands for increased wages, and congestion of population in the cities and towns. The second reading was agreed to. OFFICIAL FIGURES. Mr Russell contended that the figures he

had quoted on Friday evening were correct, and maintained his position, alleging that the Government were receding from their land for settlements policy. The Premier said that he had had figures prepared by the department to support his position, and he intended to move that they be'laid on the table.' It was to be hoped that after being confronted with such stubborn facts the member for Riccarton would "come to the penitent stool, the table of the House, and humbly promise not to do it again." At this juncture Mr Russell was seen approaching the table. The House laughed,

imagining that he was going to accept the Premier's invitation to the penitent stool; but it was found that Riccarton had merely left his seat in order to peruse the paper which Mr Seddon was laying on the table respecting land settlement. The paper furnished the following particulars as to the transactions of the Land for Settlements Department:—Expenditure for the nine months ended December 31, 1900: Purchase-money £11,396, expenses £11,632, interest £21,902; total, £44,950. For the twelve months ended March 31, 1901: Purchase-money (as shown below) £186,621, expenses £14,305. interest £50,910; total, £251,836. The properties represented as having been purchased early in 1900, all of which were paid for in that year (with the exception of Earnscleugh, Karapiro, Maungaraki, and Ohakea), were: Earnscleugh £3,100, Hatuma £141,618, Karapiro £253, Lydon £15,750, Maungaraki £2,797, North Bank £6,750, Ohakea £5,245, Taranaki £2,857, Waipapa £825; total purchase money, £186,621. The following shows the estates that were purchased between April 1, 1900, and March 31, 1901:—Hawke's Bay: Hatuma, 26,350 acres, £141,618 (completed); Mangatoro, 19,550 acres, £87,975 (under survey). Wellington : Langdale, 9,406 acres, £30,669

(completed); Mangawhata, 1,226 acres, £16,129 (completed); Maungaraki, 423 acres, £3,000. Workmen's homes (near Petone, Lower Hutt): Epani, 102 acres, £9,146. Marlborough: Waipapa, 3,600 acres, £8,250 (completed). Canterbun-: Lyndon, 4,243 acres, £15,750 (completed); Kohika, 3,864 acres, £28,093 (completed); Raincliff, 745 acres, £2,424 (completed); Taramahi, 322 acres, £BSB. Workmen's homes (near Christchurch): Pukuka, 39 acres, £981: ditto (near Timaru), Mount Delargy, 100 acres, £3OO. Homestead site (Otago): Earnscleugh, 1,152 acres, £3,000 ; 250 acres for workmen's homes. Totals, 70,833 acres, £350,193. Of the above sum, £87,442 was paid in April, 1901. In a former statement the North Bank Estate (12,800 acres, purchased for £6,750) was included in error, the date of agreement to purchase being 14th March, 1900, and the date of completion 31st March, 1901. This accounted for the discrepancy in former totals of 82,974 acres and £356,850. The following figures show the purchases made from the time the Land for Settlements Act first came into operation to date, grouped according to provincial districts : Auckland, 35,885 acres, £89.500 ; Hawke's Bay, 58,855, £317,996; Taranaki. 1,500. £31.500; Wellington, 15,606, £106,190; Marlborough. 64,450. £158,700; West-land, 3,230, £3,634; Canterbury. £137,660, £774,660; Otago, 59,605, £336,300 ; Southland, 34.165, £88,030 ; totals, 410,966 acres, £1,610.510. The figures do not include the cost for roading, survey, and administration. THE BILL IN COMMITTEE. Clauses 1 and 2 were passed without

amendment. On clause 3 (extension of Minister's powers) being reached, Mr Herriea moved a new proviso to the effect that any expenditure under this section shall be subject to the provisions of the Public Works Act, 1894. He objected to the expenditure on the construction of drainage works, etc., not being limited.—The Premier said be could not agree to the amendment, but would have the question of the Minister's powers looked into. —The proviso was negatived on the voices, and the clause passed as printed*. Clause 4. which provided that expenses incidental to the administration of the Act shall be paid out of the Land for Settlements Account, gave rise to further discussion. Exception was taken by members of the Opposition to the authorisation of such large amounts as might become incidental expenses without special appropriation by Parliament.—No amendment was made. At clause 5 {dealing with the compulsory taking of land), Mr J. Allen moved that the assessor appointed by the claimant shall be appointed at the same time as the Government assessor, and not twenty-one days previously, as provided in the Bill.—This was rejected on a division by 40 to 15, and the clause passed unamended. Clause- 6 (preventing evasion of the Act by forbidding any owner whose property is the subject of negotiations from parting with any portion of the laud after notice of the intention of the Government to acquire the land has been given).—Captain Russell moved a new clause, authorising an owner to reserve for each of his children 500 acres of first class land or 1,000 acres of second class.—Mr Massey urged that a landowner should be allowed six months to cut up his

land, or otherwise dispose of it, before the Court could acquire it by compulsory purchase.—The Premier moved a proviso to the clause to the effect that if the Government do not proceed with the purchase within twelve months after notice the restrictions on the land shall cease.—Mr Massey stated that twelve months ago a block of" land had been offered to the Government for workmen's homes in Auckland, but for some reason the offer was not accepted, and now the value of the property had gone up £5 per acre. If that land had been in process of acquirement by the Government for a whole vear there would have been no opportunity of disposing of it at the enhanced price.—On resuming at ha'.f-past seven, the following subsection, proposed by the Premier, was agreed to: —"If the Governor does not proceed with the purchase, and the land is not acquired by him within twelve months after the date of the notice mentioned in the last preceding subsection, then the restriction on the disposing of the land under that subsection shall cease to have effect." —This was agreed to, and the clause as amended was affirmed bv 41 to 21.

Clause 7 (land may be purchased at auction) was agreed to. Clause 8 (married men with families to have preference) was expected to give rise to some trouble, judging by what the debate in the early part of the day had shown. —The Premier at once took the floor, and said that the clause was designed to prevent dummyism, and to ensure that only bona fide settlers'who would till the land got it. The ballot inder present conditions fostered gambling; people got sections and transferred their holdings. Auction, as some members had urged, would not meet the evil. To prevent dummvism, he proposed to withdraw the clause * under consideration, and to bring down additional clauses to safeguard the ballot system—the original mode—so as to give an opportunity to people, living in the congested cities to settle upon the land. The manner in which the ballot was now manipulated proved an obstacle to bona fide settlement.—Mr Herries chaf-finn-ly declared that the Premier was bidding for the Leadership of the Opposition,

and said that nothing more condemnatory of the'land ballot system of the Government had come down from the Opposition side of the House.—Mr Massey taunted the Government with being beholden to the Opposition for many valuable suggestions, such as the penny pustage.—(Jeers and laughter.) If the idea had not originated with the Opposition it would not have been in operation now. Seeing that the Government desired suggestions from the Opposition, he wanted them, in order to get over the evils of dummyism, to provide that transfers be allowed only between members of the same family.—The PostmasterGeneral said that as regards penny postage

the Opposition never touched the subject until before the last General Election, when they had the cheek, presumption, and egotism to include it in their political programme. He went on to poke fun at the member for Frankton, whom he designated as the "oldest bachelor in the House," which elicited roars of laughter.— The Premier said that no one could deny that the credit for the penny postage

honestly belonged to his colleague Sir Joseph Ward. It was quite possible that the idea had been mentioned, but the chief credit belonged to the man who had accomplished it.—Mr Pirani said that surely the Premier had more control over his party than to allow them to go on stonewalling their own Bill.—Sir Joseph Ward retorted with some warmth, and a breeze appeared to be brewing.-Mr Pirani stigmatised his remarks as abusive, and forthwith proceeded to assail the Postmaster-General in bitter, personal terms, finally declaring that he treated with the contempt they deserved any references to himself.—Clause 8 was then struck out on the motion ot the Premier, who will introduce a new clause to deal with the question. Clause 9 (Governor may make regulations regarding claims to compensation in respect to the compulsory taking of land). —Mr Herries moved that the, clause be deleted—Sir Joseph Ward, by way of per-

sonal explanation, reciprocated Mr Pirani s contempt.—Mr Pirani, returning to the charge, accused Sir Joseph of obstructing business, and sought from the Minister m charge of the Bill his reasons for introducing a clause which would override an Act of Parliament.—At the suggestion of the Premier, the clause was modified by limiting the Governor's powers in respect to compensation for lands taken under the principal Act.—The House took a division on the motion "That the clause as amended stand part of the Bill," which was carried by 28 to 23. It now being half-past ten, the Chairman of Committees ruled that under the new time for rising he must leave the chair and report progress. . On the Speaker resuming the chair, the Premier wanted to adjourn the question till 2.30 to-day, but the Speaker pointed out that it was unconstitutional to take away private members' day (Wednesday), except, for urgent business. —Mr Allen protested that of the two Government days Friday had been taken away, so far as answering questions was concerned, and now it seemed that Wednesday was also to

be denied them for that purpose. He protested against the Premier's high-handed action.—The Premier said he desired to withdraw his motion that the Bill be further considered in committee at 2.30, and would substitute 7.30. He would see that private members got another day for the loss of their Wednesday.—On a division it was agreed bv 39 to 21 to again take up the Bill at half-past seven this evening. WELLINGTON, July 25.

In accordance with the decision of the House, members proceeded to the further consideration in committee of the Land for Settlements Amendment Bill when they assembled at half-past seven last evening. The discussion was resumed on the new clause proposed by the Hon. Captain Russell, as follows:—" Where an owner of land has children born in lawful wedlock, the areas limited bv subsections 2 and 7> of section 12 of the Sand for Settlements Consolidation Act, 1900, shall be increased as. follows- that is to say : An additional area of 500 acres for each such child ; of second class land, an additional area of .1,000 acres

for each such child ; and of pastoral land an additional area of 2,000 acres for each such child." An animated discussion followed, the Opposition claiming that the amendment was fair and reasonable; whilst the Ministerialists denounced it as deliberately designed to defeat the land for settlements policy.—Mr Fraser (Napier) said he wouid support the clause if the mover would accept this proviso: "Provided that such child is not the owner of any other land, or that such areas so excluded shall adjoin one another." —Captain Russell intimated his willingness to accept the proviso.—After the discussion had gone on for some time the Premier proceeded, amidst persistent, interruptions from the Opposition benches, and in the course of his remarks applied the term " Rude interruptions" to the interjections of Mr Atkinson.—Mr Pirani raised the objection that the phrase was unparliamentary, and ought to be withdrawn ; but Mr Guinness ruled that the expression was not out of order.—Mr Atkinson said that when he used a similar expression last session it was ruled out of order; but Mr Guinness parried the thrust by declaring that his ruling of last year was quite in order, as was that on the present occasion. —Shortly afterwards Mr Pirani moved that

progress be reported, so that Mr Speaker's ruling might bo taken upon that of the Chairman.—The Chairman (decisively): " I can rule on that at once. The motion is out of order. The proper way to challenge my ruling is to give notice in the House."— Mr Pirani protested, but said that he would deal with the ruling at another time.—The Premier urged the Committee to reject the clause, as it would lead to "spotting." The eyes of the land would be picked out by the father for his sons. When Captain Russell j>roposed the same clause some few years ago it was strenuously opposed by Sir John M'Kenzie (then Minister of Lands), on the ground that its adoption would mean a breakdown of the land for settlements policy.—lt got/bruited about as time wore on that an all-night sitting was intended, as the Premier was determined to put the Bill through committee. At a quarter-past twelve Mr Graham moved to report progress. There were one or two reasons why the motion should be carried. In the first place the health of the Premier was such that he was not physically lit to remain in the Chamber all night on the Bill; and secondly, the Government, having set the good example of putting up the shutters at half-past ten on two nights in the week, should not be parties to breaking that rule to a great extent on the other two sitting nights. The Premier would no doubt resist the motion, because no progress had been made ; but Mr Seddon himself was responsible for that. Of the five and a-quarter hours spent in committee on the Bill, the Premier, despite his sore

throat, had occupied two hours and a-quar-ter of the time. The Premier and the member for Masterton, by their firebrand utterances on the land question at the beginning of the evening, had put a stop to any progress.—The Premier said he did not thank the hon. member for proposing the motion out of consideration for himself. He was quite fit to go on for twenty-four hours.— Mr Meredith strongly supported the motion to report progress, which was negatived on a division by 35 to 22, and the Premier, with dogged determination, set himself to the task, despite his ailment, of seeing the thing through.—At' one o'clock a division was taken on Captain Russell's clause, which was negatived by 39 to 13.

Mr Herries moved another new clause, providing that the holder of a lease in perpetuitv may acquire the freehold. He claimed the support of the Premier and the Hon. Mr Duncan, both of whom supported a similar proposal in 1897.—The Committee showed impatience to divide, and the proposed clause was rejected without debate by 41 to 10. "Next Mr Fowlds moved—"That section 52 of the principal Act is hereby repealed, and also the Crown Tenants' Rent Rebate Act" (which makes alO per cent, reduction in the case of prompt payments on overdue rent), and the following substituted: "Where in any case, in the opinion of the Land Board, the rent is too high, the Minister, on the recommendation of the Land Board, may make such reduction of the rent as the Minister and the said Land Board may deem reasonable."—The Premier said that he was willincr to support the proposal if it were restricted to the repeal of clause 52 of the principal Act. He was not satisfied with the administration of the Crown Tenants' Rebate Act, and would give the House an opportunity of .dealing with that measure. After considerable discussion the Premier utged that the best thing would be to withdraw the amendment, and he would bring in a Bill to amend the Crown Tenants' Rebate of Rent Act in the direction

of making it apply to all tenants, and to give effect to the wishes of the Legislature. Mr Fowlds thereupon withdrew his proposed new clause. On the motion of Mr Seddon a new clause was added (in place of clause 8, which was struck out) to provide that whenever land acquired under the principal Act is cut up for occupation allotments it should be classified according as they are suitable for ordinary farms, dairy farms, or small-grazing runs. Mr Seddon moved a new clause to provide that applicants shall be reduced by ballot to the number of sections available, and the second ballot shall then be taken to determine the successful applicant.—Carried by 36 to 14. Mr Seddon moved a new clause, making it compulsory upon every applicant who obtains an allotment under the Act to reside continuously thereon.—Carried by 33 to 16.

On the motion of Mr Seddon a new clause was added prohibiting the transfer of a lease within five years, except under extraordinary circumstances, which are to be determined by the Land Board.—An amendment by Mr Pirani to allow a transfer to a member of the lessee's own family not alreadv possessed of land was rejected by 32 to 15.

A new clause was inserted, on Mr Seddon's motion, allowing the Land Board after two years, with the consent of the Minister, to accept surrender of lease, on condition that the lessee gets the value of his improvements from the incoming lessee. Mr Thomas Mackenzie moved a new clause to permit the son of the owner of an estate which has been resumed by the Government to take up 200 acres of second class land out of the estate, provided he farms the land himself.—Lost by 32 to 10. The Bill was reported with amendments, which were set down for consideration at 7.30 p.m., Mr Seddon promising to recompense private members for the loss of their evening. At 3.10 a.m. the House adjourned till 7.30 p.m. WELLINGTON, July 26. When the House met last evening the motion "that the amendments made in committee on the Land for Settlements Bill be agreed to" was met bv Mr Wilfnid moving that the Bill be recommitted for I'm titer consideration of clause 9. The member for

Wellington Suburbs said he moved the amendment because lie objected to the powers conferred on the Governor in making regulations concerning claims for compensation in respect lo the compulsory talcing of land under the principal Act, and for that purpose modifying the provisions of the Public Works Act, 1894, in its application to such claims. Mr Wilford also ohjected to the clause on the. ground that, there was nothing to show what act ion by the Government would lie ultra, vires. The Premier said the matter was provided for in section 18 of the principal Act. As In the objection that the clause would enable the Governor by regulation to override an Act of Parliament, he regarded that, as unconstitutional, but he did not desire to introduce an amendment in the Legislative Council to ,meet the case. He. therefore proposed, if the Bill were recommitted, to insert a. proviso to modify the regulations in so far as thev might conflict with the Act. of 1894.—Mr Wilford declined to accept the compromise offered.—Mr Pirani hinted that Mr Barclay had been "nobbled" by the Premiei, and that was why he had abandoned his motion for recommittal of the clause—a statement which the junior member for Dunedin said " had not a word of truth in it."—Mr Palmer rose to protest, and Mr Speaker mildly ruled the expression out of order.--"! should have said 'incorrect,'" apologetically Mr Barclay, and the incideiW passed. The House divided on the question that only the first section of clause 9 be recommitted, as proposed by the Premier, and not the whole clause, as Mr Wilford and others wished. The Government carried their point by 31 to 29.

In Committee the Premier moved to strike out the end of the first paragraph, modifying the provisions of the Public Works Act, 1894, in its application to claims to compensation, which was agreed to, and the following words were inserted on the motion of the Premier:—"The provisions of the Public: Works Act, 1894, relating to claims to compensation, are hereby modified in so far as the same are inconsistent with the principal Act and with this Act."

The Bill was reported as further amended, and speeches were delivered by Messrs Herries, Hon. C. H. Mills, Hogg, Hornsby, Collins, Captain Russell, Wilford, A. L. D. Eraser, T. Mackenzie (who advocated the optional system so long as the aggregation of estates was not permitted), Haselden (who on rising to make his maiden speech was warmly applauded), Monk, Lawry, Field, and others. After the Telegraph Office closed the debate on the third reading of the Land for Settlements Act Amendment Bill was continued by Messrs Massev, O'Meara, Meredith, and G. W. Russell.

Mr Seddon, who rose to reply at 2.45 a.m., said that Captain Russell's attempt to interfere with the land for settlements system showed that he was still Leader of the Opposition party in the House. With regard to what had been said about settlement of the land in back blocks, he contended that no time had been lost in occupying these lands, ■ but settlers must have roads and communications. It was the cursed system of giving the freehold of land for cash, and of allotting land before it was properly opened up, that had kept things back in the past. Since the tax had been placed on land there had been an increase of two owners who held es tates worth over £IOO,OOO, and the lime was not far distant when they would have to increase the graduated Land Tax in order to stop the abuses that were going on in the colony. He condemned Captain Russell's amendment, and said that in its application to partnership estates it was nothing less than diabolical, and a deliberate attempt to provide that there should

not be anv land at all taken under the Land for Settlements Act, It had been suggested that Crown tenants who held land on leasehold were dissatisfied with the conditions of tenure, and that they would vote against the Government. To say this was to say there was no gratitude in man, and he did not believe it. He defended the Government valuers from the charges that had been made against them, and replied to the attacks that had been levelled at the native land policy of the Government. He declared that this Bill was urgently required to assist the land for settlement policy. The third reading was carried by 32 to 6, and the Bill passed its final stages at 3.25. The House adjourned till 2.30 p.m.