HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXI, Issue 6995, 8 December 1909, Page 8

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

LANDS FOR SETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATION. BILL IN COMMITTEE. The House met at 2.30 p.m., and after spending some time in handling three days' arrears of committee reports and notices of motion wont into committee on the Lands for Settlement Administration Bill. A preliminary objection was raised by Mr J. Allen (Bruce), who said that it was very awkward indeed to have a set of Bills each of which was contingent upon' all tho others. This Bill, for instance, was .contingent upon the State Guaranteed' Advances Bill. Would it not be far batter to make it a separate Bill standing entirely by itself? Nobody knew whether the State Guaranteed Advances Bill would go'through this year or not; at present it seemed to bo hung up. Tho Prime Minister said that, originally it had been his intention to make the Bill quite separate from the others, but ho had found that to be impossible. Mr Allen objected to the land being vested ; n the Superintendent, while Mr Herries saw no reason for such objection, as the proposal would do away with the "Crown Suits Act. . If litigation arose, the Superintendent would be the person "to sue. Would any tenant who was turned out have a ground for action on a question of fact the same as an ordinary tenant would have a ground of action for a broach of contract?

The Prime Minister replied'that he did not. know wliat the legal effectwould bo, but the position and intention of the legislation was perfectly clear—tliat the whole of the assets now existing under the Inncl for Settlement Act should be transferred to the Stat-3 Guaranteed Advances Pspartment. In future Crown lands handed over to the latter department would be recognisjd as being, worked under the original Act. A BAD INFLUENCE. Mr A. W. Hogg (Masterton) suggested that instead of the land being vested in the Superintendent it should bo vested in the local bodies. This he thought would remove political influence, which was now rdaying ducks and drakes with the public* property. He had long been of the opinion that the land should be placed beyond political influence and vested in the people. If placed under the control of the local bodies it should prove of benefit to the whole community. . s Mr G. Laurenson (Lyttelton) said there was a lot of truth in the suggestion and a_tremendous lot of wisdom. If something were done in the direction indicated by vesting the land with the local bodies for educational and other purposes it would remove it from a most dangerous sphere in which it noiv lay. If it was. the business of a local, authority to hold on to the land and administer it to the best interests of itself and its they -would not hear such clamour as had been heard lately.

Mr Hanan (invercargill) instanced what had been done in this connection ■in Great Britain with .great success. Mr D. McLaren (Wellington East) thought that by vesting larger powers in local bodies more oould be done for the housing of workers than had been the case in the past. They could then grapple the serious question of housing workers ton satisfactory, lines., . In connection with any such scheme, theire must also be effective- measures for transit, which could only be' done by giving the power to local bodies. Mr Herries thought that if-they were going to hand over the land to the Superintendent they might as well go further and hand it over to the local bodies.

Mr Hogg said there was nothing new in his proposal. Many of the local bodies now had valuable endowments which had been administered to great advantage, as at Mastetrton. He moved that the word "Superintendent" be struck out with a view to substituting the words "local authority. 1 ' The amendment was lost by 63 votes Trie Prime Minister explained that the Superintendent 'had nothing whatever to do with the working of the land under the proposals. It remained under the Minister without any variation at ill ' Mr Herries: Then, what has the super. intendent to do? . The Prime Minister: Raise the money, guaranteed by the State. Mr Herries: Then the Bill should say so. It is not dear as it now sta-nds. . . , , . ~ On claure 9, which sets out the sums of money that may be. raised for So pumoses nf. the Bill, Mr Mas:ey moved the addition off. a now sub-sec-tion to five Cro.wn tenants the right of purchasing the fee simple at the orieinal valuation. _ - After a lengthy discussion (reported elsewhere) the motion was defeated by 42 votes to 21. LIMITATION OF AREA. Rapid prograss was made until the committee came to clause 19, dealing wi+.h the limitation of areas. The Prime Minister moved amendments in

tho clause with the object of reducing the maximum area of first-class land that can be retained from 1000 acres to 400 acres, and providing that for the purposes pf the Bill one acre of first-class land should be held equivalent to 2J acres of second-class land, and one aero of second-class land to 2£ acres of third-class land. -Mr Buchanan complained that the classification was wrong, and in order to .test feeling upon the point moved to delete certain words in one of tho sub-sveotions. The amendment was lost by 42 votes to 23, and the Prime Minister's proposals were agreed if on the voices. Mr Newman (Manawatu) moved the addition of tho foUowing now subclause: "Any owner whose land is being taken may, in addition to the area already referred to, retain 100 acres of first-class land or its equivalent on account of eaoh adult son. provided that he can satisfy tho Land Purchase Board that the son intends to follow agricultural or pastoral pursuits." The Prime - Minister said he could not accept tho proposal, for with tho oxemptions already agreed to a man with a number of sons could quite possibly retain the whole of his estate under this provision. Mr Massey expressed sorrow at hearing this, and urged that very great injustice might be done where the Government insisted on taking an estate from a, man whose sons "had •been brought up as farmers. He thought it a very reasonable .proposal,lor without it a man's own family would be turned off land just to make room for other people. d"cowed from all points of view, and in the end the Prime Minister-protest-ed against any more time being wasted over it.

• J lO -, P 1 " 0^ new sub-clause was rejected by 39 votes to 25, and than Mr .Newman moved it again irith the sole substitution of "50 for "100 acres. T h<? Chairman, oil being appealed to by Sir Russell, ruled that this was out of. order, the present amendment being substantially the same as that which had just been defeated.

Against this ruling Mr Massey. protested. He said that the principle involved was important and .urged the Prime Minister to move to report progress in order to secure the Speaker's ruling upon the point. The Prime Minister upheld the Chairman and declined to report, progress. ' Mr Pearce filled the gap. and moved that progress be reported for the purpose indicated by Mr Massey. The motion 'was lost on the voices. On coming to the end of the land for settlement clauses Mr Davey asked the Prime Minister whether he would insert some provision to prevent men owning considerable capital from competing for any land under the Bill. Sir Joseph Ward said that he was not prepared off hand to give an answer to the question, but would be very -glad to consider the point raised. If the change were found desirable it could be done by regulation. COMPULSORY ACQUISITION. ■ In accordance with promise made the previous night the Prime Minister moved to strike the words "compulsorily I taken"-out of-clause 24, -which...provides for the taking of land for homes and home-farms, for workers. This was to be done with, a, view , of inserting tho word "acquired'' and in order to meet the objections previously raised. The change was generally approved by members, who thought it wrong that any farmer living within twenty miles of a borough should be liable to lose practically the whole of his land, whether ho liked it or not. Another change in the cla-.-rc agreed to on the miction of fclio Prime Minister was the deletion of all references to town districts, it ' having been found that only two such districts would bo affected. , The question of tenure ws,i in connection with clause- 20. ' «'liij?li deals with the disposal of the land. Ibo Prime Minister explained that the.existing powers were to bo continued, with'the addition that a man could .take tl?e land up under renewable lease. The proposals were agreed to. ~ The committee was /uyided by Mr Allen on clause 27, rdiich dealt wvt,i fresh valuations and .-mr-sid'arT roils. Ho moved to strike out the sub-sec-tion providing that "in no ccce shall any increased: or further -increased valuation appearing on the subsidiary roll bo altered by reduction. He said he could not see the reason for The amendment was defeated by 39 votes to 23. •

DISQUALIFICATIONS. . Mr Witty moved to amend clause 30 —which provided that successful applicants for land Should bo disqualified for five years from participating in another ballot—by making the disqualification cover ten years. .: The Prime Minister said he could not accept- the amendment.- He thought disqualification for five years •wo.s quite long enouijh. Mr Taylor said ho would go- still further, than Mr- Witty and move' to make the dirvoualification absolute. They should do something to check I speculative balloting. If a man who had onoe been successful desired, .to get land again, he. should purchase-it out of the profits made on the first deal.An amendment by Mr ft. M. Thomson, to impose- disqnalincation "except under very, exceptional circumstances and with the approval,of the Land Board," was lost. ,as were also all the other amendments brought forward. -..''■ On the motion of the Prime Minister, clause 31, making continuous:, residence for ten years necessary. ira« struck out of the Bill. He explained that this would' mean keeping to the present system, of _ continuous . residence ' instead of limiting it. to ten years.« . " PROPOSED; NEW CLAUSES, r Mr Taylor moved the addition of the following new elauße: "Upon the sale of any lease held by any person over laud acquired • under the Act there shall be paid to the Crown a sum equal to the increase in the value of such land as bstween the unimproved value at the date of acquisition from the Crown and the. date of sale, the transfer of any'lease to be subject also to such payment." The Prime. Minister said he could not accept the proposal, though he admitted that something required to bo done to prevent profits being made out' of the sale of leaseholds. If the motion were carried it would stop many people from taking up land and that would be very undesirable. The second reading of the proposed new clause was defeated by 48 votes to 10. Another new clause moved by . the leader of the Opposition sought to repeal subsection 1 of section 45 of the Land for Settlement Act, 1908. and substitute the following provision there, for:—"No settlement land shall be dis-: po-sed of by way of lease-in-perpertnity. but all such, land shall be disposed of on the optional system,"

The proposed new clause was thrown out on its second reading by 35 votes to 27. Progress was reported, and consideration of tho amendments made was set down for to-day, and the House rose at 2 o'clock. . .