THE LAND BILL.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLIII, Issue 13304, 10 October 1906, Page 8

THE LAND BILL.

SECOND READING DEBATE. ; BILL DEFENDED BY MR. McNAB. r VIGOROUS CRITICISM BY MR. I ; MASSEY. ■ ' SIR JOSEPH WARDS REPLY. [NT TELEGRAPH.-—SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT.] ::•■•--'.;' v • Wellington*,-Tuesday., . When the House met at half-past.seven o'clock this evening all the' galleries : were crowded, in anticipation , of ~ an : interesting debate on the land "question.. The ladies', gallery was particularly crowded, numbers having to stand.; Lady ' Plunket and.' the Hon; -Kathleen .Plunket- occupied seats .in the Speaker's" gallery. •"There was an unusually large gathering ? ' of 'Legislative Councillors,- and the three -public galleries and the'press gallery "were-also crowded. The Gisborne contingent of members, who had been away at the unveiling of the Captain Cook monument, made their appearance at about twenty minutes to eight. Meantime the House marked time with the Parapara clause in the Mining Act Amendment Bill, until Mr. McNab could get his full audience. This Bill was good-humouredly stonewalled by Mr. Roderick McKenzie, but at eight p.m. Mr. McGowan, who was in charge of the Bill, moved to report progress. This having been done, the Speaker took the. chair, and the House at once began to discuss whether or not members should be allowed to speak for an hour or only for half-an-hour on the Land Bill. The mover of the second reading of a Bill is entitled to speak for an hour, whilst other members are limited to half-an-hour. The Leader of the Opposition had previously suggested .that the time should be extended to one hour. Sir Joseph Ward now proposed that Mr. Massey be allowed one hour on condition that he (Sir Joseph) was allowed an hour in which to reply to him. Mr. Thos. Mackenzie objected to invidious distinctions being made, and Mr. Herries supported him. "Let us all come in," he said. Mr. Massey agreed, and Messrs. Major and R. McKenzie supported this contention. The latter raised a laugh by stating that the whole wisdom of the country was not concentrated in. the Premier, the Leader of the Opposition, and the Minister for Lands. Two of these, Sir Joseph Ward and Mr. Massey, were worn out(laughter)—and an opportunity should be given to let the new members shed some light- on the subject. He thought they should" be allowed ' two hours, and as for himself he should be allowed a week. (Laughter.) After - some discussion the Premier said he would be. content with half-an-hour. Mr. Flatman .'objected to hour speeches. . They would only have, he said, the same twaddle over and over again. , Mr. Major: "'Speak for .yourself. (Laughter.) Mr. Flatman: "Nevermind, I am speaking to the country." (Renewed laughter). At half-past eight the House, amid a buzz of conversation, divided on an amendment by Mr. Alison that all should have an hour.* This was defeated, but only by seven votes, the numbers being 40 to 53. The result was received with applause. Many of the Government freeholders voted with the Opposition. Eventually it was decided that the Leader of .the Opposition should be. allowed an', homy and this point haying been settled, Mr. {McNab,.at twenty . minutes to ; nine, plunged into an "explanation of his much ': ended. Bill. He was followed J&y >Mr. Mftssey,, and • then the PremieiJspokev ~-■: It* sjtfie course -of his speech, Sir JosephyWard.said that members on both sides' of the House were moving heaven and earthyto-.prev,cuiytheJi(juse sitting after the. opening,. of, Mpipttion. "No, no," was the ; interject ion-from members. "I say I know that/ is true, because they have apr pealed'to '"me," was the emphatic rejoinder. The Government intends to pass: this Bill if the House will assist. it,", the Premier ) added amidst the applause of . leaseholders and complacent smile's of freeholders. " ' Sir Joseph, however, whilst referring to the appeal of members in regard to a November sitting, did not indicate the intentions . of . the Government on this point. He said •he thought the House should rise about Monday, the 29th, for the opening of the Exhibition, .but beyond that the House was not. taken into his confidence. The speeches of Mr. Massey and the Premier were both full ':,of life, and were perhaps amongst the best they have delivered. Mr. McNab, in having to explain the details of the measure, was not in a position . to be heard to the same advantage as when he enunciated the leading principles of the proposals. In his reply, however, he will have more scope for the exercise of his debating powers. SPEECH BY MINISTER FOR LANDS. [BY TELEGRAPH.PRESS ASSOCIATION.] , Wellington, Tuesday. The Minister for Lands (Mr. McNab), in moving the second reading of the Land Bill, pointed out that there was much in the Bill that was in it when it was before the House on a previous occasion. He would not require to go into that, but would deal with the new portions added by the committee, which covered much detail. The proposals had been widely discussed by this time. One proposal was to fix a limitation of £50,000 unimproved value, involving a valuation of all such properties as the last list had been rendered unreliable by sales, deaths, and, above all things, by the late very large increase of value of land: Taking that list, the excess value was something like two and a-quarter millions. This question would be accurately settled when the new list was formed. That list would only be reopened by the Legislature, but there was no intention to reopen it. At the end of 10 years there would be a revision before the Court on the Minister for Lands stepping in to sell the excess. It would, of course, be to the interest of the owner to realise early, and the fear of the Minister stepping in would quicken the perception of the fact.' Trustees had been excepted by the committee, who felt that no trustee should have the power to purchase. Trustees might not have the best facilities for realising. Clause 11 (B) had been devised to prevent selling owners from retaining an interest. A sale could be on terms extending over ten years, but owners becoming mortgagees could not buy back at a sale forced by default. The Minister proceeded to explain the change in the purchasers' restriction from acreage to value, showing how all the difficulties in the latter case vanish. Property left by will and intestate estates, he explained, were not subject to this £15,000 restriction. The other exceptions he detailed as published, adding that mortgagees are not excluded, for otherwise the whole machinery of restriction would be defeated with ease. Mortgagees becoming purchasers would be limited to two years, and bona-fide contracts for purchase prior to the commencement of the Act were exempt from the restriction with regard to the lease (132 years in all). Mr. Hogg : " Long enough for anybody." The Minister explained the provisions, aduing that it was out of the question to fix the percentage on the value of the land at the time of renewal, as that was a matter dependent on the value of money, which could not be known 66 years in advance. With regard to the payments on capital value, only two obligations would remain, those of rent and residence. Moreover, moneys thus paid would be always available for payment of rent in time of trouble or calamity. The lease-in-perpetuity tenants under this system,would have a 999 freehold. ' A Voice: " Why don't you give it to them?" The Minister said much had been said about "a limited" freehold. The hon. gentleman who had interjected was one who was always talking of .a limited freehold, but this was the best possible form of limited value. Much had been said of the purchase of the freehold at the original value. There had .been a great agitation in that direction, but this provision of investing up to 90 per cent, on the original value was,

he: held, much better. (Cries of " No,*,')' The country at large would'say so without hesitation"." Returning to the renewable lease, he pointed out that the secret of the land's productiveness would be known at the end of the 66 years, and the country could make the most profitable bargain for the new lease. As to the tenants under these leases, they did not propose to compel them to choose any particular system, or" force them to labour right off. Theywould deal liberally with them, even being, ready to go so far as to let them go for from; 10 to 20 years rent free, r.j That would be" the most profitable course for the country. Coming to the endowment question, he gave figures showing a total of 13 million'acres now producing £124,000 a }ear, and another 3,000,000 acres to tome. (Applause.) ''' MR. . MASSE Y'S CRITICISM. j , Mr. Massey, who was received with applause,, complimented the Minister on having made, the best of a bad case. He denounced the original Bill as the crudest and most ill-considered measure ever put before the- Legislature, and' applauded the committee for having licked it into shape.' The principle of the Bill was bad from every ' point, of, view, especially from the; point* of , view of -the settlers", whom it deprived of independence. The endowments were ad e-" vice for preventing .settlers acquiring the freehold. It went' on to confine these .en-', dowments to the worst land, which, would never attract settlers nor pay revenue, and' woidd nob advance' in value. ""The renewable lease he denounced as hampering settlement, and inferior immeasurably to the Glasgow lease with a purchasing clause.; It would satisfy,nobody but single-taxers and socialists, with whom the Minister was now inseparably associated. The Bill was retrogade, and brought in by a retrogressive Government. It would not encourage settlement, but discourage it. The greater part of the lauds declared excessive was the. property of men who had served the country well. There would not. be much land available in consequence of their treatment, and freehold land would be available only for the man with money, and the poor maiii would have no chance. There would any-' how be little or no land available for 10 years, instead of the plethora which the Government pretended to see at hand. As' to the difference between city and country he could not follow the Minister's explanation. If limitation was good for the country it was good for the city. He criticised the injustice of placing lands developed by the skill, energy, and capital of their owners on the same footing as those for which nothing had been dene. He was . amazed at the numerous disastrous points of the measure. The Minister wanted them to believe that its proposals had been before the country at the election. He denied that they had ever been before the country. The mortgage clauses were glorified by the Minister, bub they were the worst part-of the Bill. Foreclosure had never been the lair, it was true, bu'. there, was a- much, worse thing. All of that was not prevented by the Bill. Moreover, the experience of the Bank of New Zealand showed that mortgagees could not- realise in 11 years, and the Bill only allowed 10. This helped to make the .Bill distasteful. Ho knew aman with means who was about to settle in the Gisborne country, which he fancied! greatly, bub v the moment he saw this Bill he concluded this was no country, for him,., and departed for Australia. The.principle of the Bill was leasehold absolutely, tot'the, '■■ people of the country; had called for free-' hold at the elections. They were getting a measure which would hand them over to landlordism. '- (Cries of "Who are the landlords?"..'and- muoh laughter.) Mr. Ma.»sey was not in favour of landlordism. There was only one thin;.; he hated worse, and that was socialism, but lie was speaking for the man who was to Work out"bis destiny?onf the land. However, the' Minister would find that very few people would take advan- , tage of the measure. Had he given the people the opportunity of getting the freehold he would have found it very different. It would "have been easy to place a provi^ ; sion on' the Statute Book, - just)in principle and satisfactory to both parties to the contract. ; Closer settlement and ; a' out freehold, that was his"land policy, andj< anyone producing it would have his., sup'?* port.- Returning to the' renewable lease',*' he pointed out that its .worst fault that the descendant of the man who hatts spent moneyjmd laboirr'and brains HnniS(|St; ing a fine property, would have at!', the 'eh&j? of 60 years'- to choose between takingrC^ .most inadequate, value 'for .-the improved ments or "slaving to pay exorbitant rent .on'. a value entirely made on the place. A ' ing to the "limited freehold'' of the Minister, based on the investment up to 90 per cent, of capital, these leases, he insisted,, , would be subject to the statutory restrie--tions on sale and transfer now so irksome, and there was no security against raising the rent. No tenant, moreover, . would trust his. money to the State, which could cheat him out of it on all sorts of, pretexts. He referred to the intense anxiety throughout the country about the Bill, and. read a resolution passed at Pahiatua against it. For his part he was quite prepared' to go to the country on the Bill. He wanted a fair issue, leasehold or freehold, both in the House and the country. This was the first Bill of importance that the Minister had brought forth. Like a pullet with its first egg, he thought a great deal more of it than it deserved. He" would, like that pullet, find it was a 'very.' ordinary Bill after all, one that would probably never reach the Statute Book. . (Applause.) PREMIER'S REPLY TO MR, MASSEY. The Premier said he could not think the last speaker had read the Bill. He characterised it as all leasehold, but the fact was that it was full of the freehold. ' Mr. Massey had criticised his colleague by eulogising the committee who had improved the measure, but it was his colleague who had moved nearly all the amendments in the committee. He invited Mr. Massey's attention to speeches delivered by men of experience years ago—Mr. E. C. J. Stevens in 1878, and M. C, C. Bowcn in 1880—in the House, advocating large endowments for the very purposes mentioned in this Bill, at a time when there was no old age pension scheme. These gentlemen belonged to the party with which Mr. Massey was associated. What did he think? He himself had in 1904 called for the reform of the land laws, and at once, but he resisted now. In his memorable campaign in the South he had felt the pulses of the people, and had returned with a very great modification in-his views. Mr. Massey asked for consideration for the tenants and the freehold, but very great consideration had been shown, by the Bill to the lease in perpetuity tenant, almost us far as giving them freeholds. There was, besides, pro-, vision in the Bill for a vast increase of freeholders. In 1904 Mr. Massey had proposed a limitation of —640 acres firstclass, and 2000 second. Yet he objected to the larger restrictions of the Bill. He was railing at the £15,000 restriction of the Bill. That placed him on the horns of a dilemma. There was a want of frankness about the hon. gentlemen of the. other side. For example, there are' 115,000 landholders, worth £70,000,000. and they make all this fuss about 63 holders, holding £2,250,000 to be restricted, and talk of freehold being taken away and produce distrust. He had, moreover, spoken of the case of Longbeach, but he had nob told the House that all the improvements are deducted. Mr. Hardy: The value would then disappear. . ~ The Premier: In which" case it would not be touched. Mr. Massey had criticised the mortgagee -proposals, but had failed to admit that existing mortgages are exempt. As to endowments, in some States of America one-tenth of the land is devoted to educational endowments. Some members also objected to the 66 years' lease, but that period was nothing in the life of a country. The-Premier quoted a resolution, and said it was a coincidence how the wires had been pulled and all these resolutions, including that of the famous 800 at Feilding, had been ,hurled at the sane, just, and fearless members of this House. He admired the farmers and their organisation, but he thought their organisation was just now being mistakenly . used. At all events,, at the election they had known who their friends were. They knew that the Government were doing the best thing for the settlement of the people on the land and lor preventing what had happened in other lands— the eviction of men from the lands of their, fathers. .'.'.,. Mr. T. Mackenzie: The leasehold. The Premier said he was sorry to hear that, for he claimed ail the Mackenzies,

blue, black, or red, with the Government on the question. (Laughter.) .The Government's, object was the stoppage of the aggregation of large estates in the country. ■- fThat policy was feasible, -but apply it to the towns, as Mr. Massey advocated, and you would have to cut the Bank of New Zealand and other places in two, and that • was not a practicable policy. Coming to ' the time limit, he was inclined to regard - the proposal for the hour limit as delibei rately made to waste the rest of the sesi sßh.', The Government could pass the Bill l if the House would help them before the end -of the session. The Government would;' take two things to the House and country—endowments and limitation of holdings. Those issues would be un- ; touched by leasehold v. freehold,' and the Bill'was not against the freehold at all. The. proposals would be for I the settlement . of the. sons and daughters of the farmers in . the -, country. ; (Applause.), i ;. ~ OPPOSED BY PAHIATUA FARMERS; '-•[Br TELEGRAPH. ASSOCIATION'.] f,.{ -•"•". ' .'pAHi.vroA, Tuesday. ■ .. At a meeting of 300, farmers this after-'. noon, at which - representatives of various branches of the Farmers' Union were present, the following resolution/'was unanim- ■ ously carried : — That," in the opinion of this ', meeting,/ being thoroughly representive of the.farmers of the district, .the Land Bill now before the House is not conducive to a good, sound colonial settlement, and urge ,upon Mr. Ross, the member for the district,' /-to oppose the placing of the ■ Bill on the ; Statute Book until the country.has had full time to consider it.