PARLIAMENT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVI, Issue 8264, 29 October 1912, Page 8

PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES LAND BILL SEVERELY CRITICISED. THIRD READING CARRIED. The House of Representatives met at 7.30 p.m. yesterday. FISHERIES BILL. The Hon. F. M. B. Fisher gave notice to introduce the Fisheries Bill. SHOPS AND OFFICES. The Prune Minister introduced the Shops and Offices Amendment Bill. It was read a first time and a second time pro forma. The measure was referred to the Labor Bills Committee for consideration and report.

LAND BILL

THIRD READING DEBATE

Tho Prime Minister moved the third reading of the Land Laws Amendment Bill.

Mr L. M. Isitt (Christchurch North) made a unal protest against “this wretched travesty of laud reform.” Tho measure would ultimately work tho undoing of the men responsible for it. It would stand there to their shame. The Bill was an unworthy determination to purchase votes by evil means.

Air AXassey: It is not! Mr Xsitt contended that there was no group of men who had read so little and know so little about the farrcaching effects of laud tenure as the land occupiers in the House. Their vision was dominated by their own interests, and their view of laud tenure was taken from their verandah. The Prime Minister was not qualified to handle the subject. Of the groat heritage of land with which the people started in this country only five million acres, with some native land, was left. As more and more of this land was monopolised by the few, the greed for land increased. Alen who now held large holdings had acquired their lands through dunimyism and with the assistance of relatives, by every possible means. The measure was vicious and retrogressive. Tho Government had taken tho first step to make absolutely extinct the system of leasehold tenure. If they were to follow this to its logical conclusion they must eventually sell every acre of national endowment. Ho contended that security of tenure could be attained under the leasehold system. Farmers werebuying land, not to settle upon and make a living off, but for speculative purposes. They talked about giving the freehold to hold the farmer to the land and the land to the people, but that argument did not bear examination in the light of the history of tho past and tho experience of the present. There was no justification for tho step that was being taken. There was nothing in tho Bill to make it compulsory that the man owning the land should farm it himself. Referring to the Taranaki district he said he had been informed by a relative of the member for New Plymouth that money was almost as scarce to-day os it was at the time when the district was engaged in the Maori war —a time when Taranaki was importing nothing but soldiers and exporting nothing but bad news. Many of the Taranaki farms were leased out by the original owners; who were residing in the suburbs of Auckland; and a system of rack-renting was in vogue at the present time. He predicted that the reaction would come. The poorer classes controlled five votes to the other classes’ three. A Government member: That’s why we’re here. Air Isitt: We are the friends of tho small farmer. They would find out that they were being led by tho noses and by the land monopolists. . ANOTHER PROTEST.

Mr G. W. Russell (Avon) said the Bill was a kind of evolution; as it passed its third reading it was a very different Bill from that introduced in the House, He had never known a Bill in which so many policy amendments were made during its progress. A member: What about the Local Government Bill? Mr Russell defended the Local Government Bill f it was the product of a conference of experts and he had put several months’ hard work into it. There was nftt one thing in ' the Land Bill, with the exception of certain classes of land, to promote settlement, and the Government had fallen back on the policy of their predecessors. A more disappointing thing in regard to land settlement had never been Known. The Consolidated Fund would have to carry on its back the whole of the expenses of opening up land under the Bill, including reading, etc. What did the Prime Minister intend to do with the people of Canterbury in connection with opening up of land? The Minister of Public Works had indicated that new railways would have to be stopped on the score of expense, and the House should be told wnat money would be available for lands for settlement. One blot in the Bill was that area counted for everything in the way of limitation and there was nothing in the way of value. Why were the holders of gum-lands to bo limited to twen-ty-five acres? Some of the most successful work had been done with village settlements. He had no feelings of regret at the freehold being given to the l.i.p. tenants as he considered the tenure a bastard one. But he looked differently upon the granting of the fee simple to lessees under the renewable lease. It was an act of spoliation which, ho believed, would go down as a blot on the legislation jf the Massey Government. 'The Bih was a travesty and a disappointment, and would not increase settlement to any material extent. Mr T. K. Sidey (Dunedin South) outlined the amendments he hod moved-in committee, none of which, he said, was intended to injure the Bill. Although the Bill did not directly give l.i.p. tenants of settlement lands t!he right to purchase the freehold, it did so indirectly, because such tenants were entitled to exchange their present tenure for renewable leases, while tenants of settlement lands under the latter tenure had a right to purchase their holdings. Mr Massey replied by way of interjection that tenants who did as suggested would place themselves in a worse position than they were now in. ' AN AMENDMENT MOVED. Mr Sidey said he thad moved an amendment in committee making the limitation provisions of the principal Act apply to land purchased under agreement with a private owner, and the House had rejected the proposal. He claimed that as the Bill stood one purchaser of an estate cut up under the proposals outlined could buy in all the other purchasers. It allowed reaggregation. He would divide the

House again on the question, and for that purpose he moved an amendment that the Bill be recommitted with a view to inserting the following new clause: il (4Sa) Part 13 of the Land Act, 1903, shall extend and apply to all lands disposed of under foe simple under the preceding provisions of this part of this Act.” [Part 13 of the principal Act limits tho area to be held by any one person to 5000 acres, calculated in a manner laid down in section 07 of the Act.] On a division the amendment was rejected by 35 votes to 20. MAX OF SMALL MEANS. Mr W. D. S. MacDonald (Bay of Plenty) was disappointed that there was very little provision made in tho Bill for the man of small means or with a small area of land. He was sorry to see that .better facilities liad nou been given to farmers in the backblocks who had gone on improved farm settlements. The land boards liad not been giving to backblocks settlers tho benefits in regard to exemptions of rates wliich they wore empowered to give. The Government should have gone further and included in this Bill tho l.i.p. tenants of settlement lands. He believed that in many instances the tenants would not avail themselves or the opportunity to purchase. He paid a tribute to the early pioneers who took up backblocks land under the l.i.p. tenure. Small grazing runs had not been dealt with so generously as might have been; they had been buffeted about from pillar to post, and settlers on these runs deserved more consideration. After ten years on these grazing runs, settlers might bo exempted from tho residence qualification. Owners of runs under three thousand acres should have the of second renewal without subdivision. These runholdcrs had an impression that there was not proper provision to safeguard them m regard to improvements, and this matter should be carefully looked into. He instanced the grazing runs in his own district, the holders of which had gone into rough country. Under this Bill the runs would bo subdivided, and the occuoicrs had to pay local rates. He urged that tho leases of these runs should he allowed to remain as at present. Ho believed very few private owners would take advantage of the provisions in regard to subdivision .of their land. The one great blot on the Bill was that these lands wore to b© offered by tender. There should .bo a baUot, . His own opinion was that the Bill made a stop in the wrong direction in regard to native lands. Tho Native Minister was far more competent to deal with this question than tho Crown Lands Department. He would rather so© the valuation and survey staffs strengthened fio that work might b© pushed on in order to induce settlement. This Bill did not touch the real measure of closer settlement —the small fanners. CLOSER SETTLEMENT.

Mr G. Laurenson (Lyttelton). agreed that the Bill did not touch the real question—namely, inducing closer settlement. There was only one way to effect this—the taxation of land values. He protested against the Bill because it gave native land up to land speculators. If land were to be broken up for settlement, they should leave the Maori alone, and deal with land owned by Europeans. The worst clause waa that winch allowed the sale of every acre of the people’s land. We reserved to the landless people of this country only 2 per cent, of the total value of the land, and every human being had an interest in the land. Only 41 per cent, of the land was occupied by freeholds and 59 per cent, by leaseholds. Our taxation had not touched the aggregation of small farms, which bad steadily gone oa. Ten years ago the average size of farms in Taranaki was 232 acres; to-day it was 250 acres. The population of the counties in ten years had increased by 144,000; that of the boroughs, by 235,000; showing that as laws were passed which aggregation, they drove the people into the towns. A land tax of double what they had at present would not be a burden on the farmers. The birth rate had decreased, and children were .becoming what was termed “encumbrances. Some persons would sooner see the land inhabited by pigs, sheep and cattle, than by people. He quoted figures to prove a larger direct taxation in England than in New Zealand—-60 uer cent, compared with 80 per cent, here. This was a reactionary measure and showed'the danger to the country of having a Conservative Government. The Bill itself was enough to condemn the Government; if put to a referendum it would get very short shrift. BY EXHAUSTION! Mr G. Forbes (Hurunui) condemned the bringing down of this Bill when the Government knew auovher measure would be introduced next year, and meanwhile the land legislation was upset. The House had been kept very late, and the Prime Minister liad aone the very thing he had condemned in the previous Ministry. This was legislation by exhaustion, and the weakness of the Bill would b© revealed in operation. The supremo test of such a Bill was: Would it put more people on the land P The Prim© Minister must take the responsibility of abolishing the residence conditions in the land, because ho had voted against a proposal imposing residential conditions when the Bill was in committee. The preference clause in regard to land ballots had Sme too far. It was a mistake to ut the door against the general public. The provisions of the Bill in re* gard to grazing runs took away from the tenants who took up their runs under the 1892 Act, their perpetual right of renewal. . Mr Massey: Nothing of the sort. Mr Forbes said the Prime Minister had always stood firm for keeping a bargain, but the Bill would break a bargain. Mx Massey: That is not so. Mr Forbes maintained that the Bill was retrospective, because in dealing with small grazing runs stated: “Notwithstanding anything in section 218 of the principal Act,” and he contended that J>he wording distinctly made for the taking away of the perpetual right of renewal as provided in 1892. EGMONT’S NEW MEMBER.

Mr C. A. Wilkinson (Egmont) said that, Mr Bussell had voiced the opinion of every l.i.p. tenant when he said he was very glad to see the freehold given to such tenants. They should not be too strict in regard to r© sl " denoe. He knew of settlers who had been driven off the land to the too strict residential conditions imposed by the 1892 Act. He refuted Mr Isitt's statement that money was scarce in Taranaki. The district was. more genuinely prosperous than many other parts of Now Zealand, Any member who believed in a leasehold policy would not hay© a chance of being elected to Parliament in Taramdd. BRIBERY ALLEGED. Mr R. McCallum (Woirau) said he never thought he would see the day when a Bill would! be passed .to pay the price of the return of members to the House. After giving a definition of bribery he said the promise to give the

freehold on any terms was a distinct bribe to get votes. It was a degradation to our public life. Mr J. A. Hanan (Invercargill) said that in some respects the Bill was retrogressive and in others circumgressive. This Bill put to tho test the courage of the Prime Minister s con- , victions in regard to land legislation. There should he a proper policy not only in regard to ownership of land but also in regard to use and production. If the leasehold were bad for tho State, surely it would bo logical to admit that the private leasehold was also bad for the State. As time went on they would have to undo the wrongs under this Bill, which would not make any more land available for those wanting it. ~ . Mr J. Young (Waikato) regretted that the measure did not go further. Ho contested statements made by the member for Wairau in regard to Political bribery, and claimed that he had a -right to exorcise his own judgment as a valuable consideration. Tho member in question had no right to say it was a promise of a bribe, because the electors in his (Mr Young’s) district hold a different opinion from that of Mr McCallura. The Bill did not rob the people of one acre of endowment lands, and it would facilitate settlement, thus increasing productivity. FOR AGGREGATION. Mr A. H. Hindmarsh (Wellington Central) called attention to defects in regard to renewable leases. As land increased in value the interest of the State in that particular land would become larger, but there was no provision for dealing with that particular land. Tho State gave away its right of valuation at tho end of the thirtythree years. This Bill was framed for the purpose of land aggregation. The Bill was conceived and intended by the Prime Minister to aid land aggregation. The Bill was all in the interests of the land-grabber. Ho would undertake to say that from one end of Now Zealand to tho other tho large landowners were supporting Mx Massey. Ho did not think the Pi'ime Minister know anything about land policy as the question should be understood. Mr H. Atmor© (Nelson) said ho was a freeholder, but only on condition that tho Government retained the power of taxation. Nothing was being done to break up the large estates, but • the Government had its eye on the small residue of the Maori lands. He hoped the natives would not sell, notwithstanding tho tempting baits held out by the Government. Mr T. W. Rhodes (Thames) said the Prime Minister was grappling with the land question, and he congratulated him on the Bill. Mr J. Robertson (Otaki) said aggregations would bo possible under the bill, and land monopoly would still go on. The Bill was detrimental to the best development of the country from tho productive point of view. It would create a landless class of farmers. Mr G. Witty (Riocarton), at 1.10 a.m., remarked on the depleted state of the Government benches, and said it* was on indication -of the earnestness of the Government about this measure. Not on© Minister except the Prime Minister had expressed any convictions on the subject. Instead of this being a Land for Settlement Bill, it was a Bill to stop settlement. H© was sure the Bill would be the undoing of the Government. He accused members of tho Government of voting for party against their own convictions. Mr W. O. Buchanan (Wairarapa) said time would show that members on the Government aide would help in the policy of breaking up of large estates. The debate was carried on by Messrs Ell and Anderson. , The PHme Minister having replied, tho third reading was carried by 42 to 13. Tho House rose at 3.5* a.m.