GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 14684, 18 November 1909, Page 8

GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER, 17. .The House met nt 2.30 n.m.

THE FINANCIAL DEBATE

Mr LAURENSOX, speaking on the adjourned debate oil tlui Financial .Statement, said he agreed with the principle embodied in Mr Taylor's amendment, but ho objected to tlic language in which it was conveyed, which was an insult to tho Government. He believed that the referendum was the natural corollary of our democratic government, and that >t was only a mailer of lime before tlic referendum and the initiative were in the hands of the people. Mr Taylor had put tho leasehold members in an unfortunate position. For himself ho reserved the right to doal with the- 'and question ■when it came beforo the Home. Ho believed that the reception of tho Land Bill in the country would be-such as to show Ministers that a large majority of the people wcro against parting with this national estate, hut the present position .in the House was that out of 79 members there were 26 leaseholders and 53 freeholders. To carry out proposals that would mean soiling the lands set aside for endowments would he an act of treachery. lie could not vote for an amendment comiicd in such language, but if its terms wcro altered so as to delete tho objectionable phraseology and affirming tho principlo of -retaining the Crown lands and having a referendum on tho question he would vote for it.

Mr FORBES asked if the amendment wan not- out of order, being contrary to Standing Older 426, which provides that and amendment on Supply could not bo moved to debate matter of which notice to move had been given 'by the tame member.

The SPEAKER Tulcdi that tho amendnent was out of order, and that members having already spoken could speak to a fresh amendment.

Mr RUSSELL moved that the system of leasehold tenure should bo maintained as an integral part of tho land tenure of the Dominion, and that a referendum should ho taken before the .proposals of the Budget granting the right of the freehold lo nearly all Crown tenants are given effect to. He said that tho orieinator of the leasehold system was the Tato Hon. \V. Roller lon, who was tho first to establish small farm settlements on that system,' of which had been very successful, This splendid system was destroyed by a ilauso moved by Iho lato Mr Scobie Mackenzie in 1884. Under this system a tenant had the right of occupation for 30 years' without revaluation, and- after that tho land was revalued by arbitrators, and the tenant had the right to lease from vear to year as long as lie lived. This was tho bost system of land tenure ever put into operation in the Dominion. Mr Russell wont on to traco the development of the land legislation since Air Rollcston's time, and he related tho circumstances nndor which tho present land system was inaugurated. Tho 999-year lease was virtually a freehold, designed to assist a poor man to become an occupier and, in duo course, owner of land. Mr Russell denounced tho gambling in State leases which winch was going on at present. One tiling which "atiklcd amongst the people was that tho country had had for the last 15 years a system of land settlement from which tho great mass of people received no benefit. This was duo to the fact that tho act had not been properly administered. He advocated a restriction of the areas of settlement land's as follows: — 200 acres first class, 610 acres second l class and'2soo acres pastoral lands. The leasehold system secured the maximum of settlement. and productiveness, which was shown by the great estates which had been subdivided in Canterbury. Tho leasehold system was also designed to prevent speculation in land andi to retain for the community some share of the wealth it produced. If the Government had been strong enough to stand firm by the leasehold system tho agitation for tho freehold would never have grown to its present dimensions. The first step in the downward path was tho iniquitous rebate of 10 per cent, of Crown tenants' rents •which proved to them that the Government was open to buy their votes. The position now was that Crown lands were put up for auction to the highest bidder. Iho Governments proposals lvere unbusinesslike, and would satisfy neither tho leaseholders nor freeholders. He held that Maori lands should be subject to taxation, whether tho titles were individualised or not, and that 10 per cent stamp duty should bo paid on sales of land.

Mr CRAIGIE seconded the amendment, which was then put and lost by 50 votes to 17. The following is the division list: —

Against tho' Amendment—Messrs Allen Anderson, Baumc, Buddo, Buick. Buxton' Carroll. Clark, Dillon, Dive, T, *Y. Duncan, J. Duncan, Field, Fowlds, Eraser, Glover, Graham, Guthrie, I-lall, Harding, llordnian, Herries, Hino. Jennings, Lan°Maedonald, R, M'Kenzie, T. Mackenzie Malcolm, Marnier, Massey, Millar, Ngata, Newman, Nosworthy, Okey, Parata! Phillipps, Poland. Rood, Rhodes, Ross, Scott, Smith, Sfallworthy, Tc Raogihiroa, G. M. Thomson, J. C. Thomson, Ward, Wilford.

Fo.- tho Amendment—Messrs Arnold, C-raigie, Davey, Fisher, Forbes, Hanan, Hogan, Laurenson, Luke, M'Laren, Poole, Russell, Seddon, Sidcy, T. E. Taylor, Witty, and Wright.

Pairs.—For tho Amendment: Mr Ell, Sir Win. Steward, and Mr Colvin. Against : Messrs Buchanan, Brown, and Grcenslsde. .

Mr FISHKR continued the debate. • He condemned tho taxation proposals, and went-on io criticise the Hon. Mr Fowlds's changed attitude on tho land question. In tho evening Mr FORBES continued tho debate. He advocated a referendum on the defcnco pro]x>sal.s so as to have the goodwill of tho people behind ilio movement. Kverv encouragement should be given lo the' ritle Mubs, which were tho best means of imparting military training . in tho country districts. In regard to the land propofiils, hp expressed disappointment n.nd regret that the fieehold should be the dominant nolo in land tenure. It was a noteworthy fact that the opposition to the Government's land proposals came chiefly from the Canterbury members, who had seen the wisdom of the leasehold system in that province. It was said that the Government's proposals were based on Mr Lloyd-George's Budget-, but in the latter it was proposed to take two-iifths of tho unearned increment, while the Government proposed to give the settlers three-fifths and four-fifths of the increased value of their hinds. •

Sir J. G. WARD said the British proposal was for taxation, while that of'tho New Zealand Government had referenco to land tcnuro onlv.

Mr FOItBKS, continuing, said the demand for the freehold in the back-blocks was largely duo ft> the Government's failure to provide good roads and do its share in the partnership between State and settler.

Mr HERDM.AX said 'no believed that the Government had been forced into making concession to the frehold sentiment in the l House, but if the Government, when passing tho legislation of 1907 believed it to be the best for the country, why abandon it now? The policy of tile Government- on the land question was one of begging for votes. The clear constitutional duty of the Government was to resign.

Sir J. G. WARD: The difficulty is that n.) one on your side is fit to govern tho eountrv.

Mr HERDMAN: I believe that if the country had an experience of the Opposition regime for a few years it would be a long time before" the present Ministry got- back. It was an act of trenclvcry for the Government to reverse its policy. In Great Britain, if any party did this ,-t would resign office and submit itself to the doctors. The Government stuck to office like limpets to a rock. He believed it would be difficult to eject the Ministry even if a vote of no confidence was carried. Mr Herdman proceeded to animadvert o» the (Axaiion nronoialc contained in tlio- 1

Budget, and charged the Prime Minister with gross extravagance in non-owing. During the last live years there had arisen a necessity to inquire into the stale of several public departments, and numerous commission.-; had been appointed in cases where the Government was in a difficulty pud afraid to face the people. It was disgraceful that after all his years of experience the Native Minister was unable to propound a policy on the Native lands problem, but a commission had to be set up to investigate the matter at great cost. The .reports of the Addington workshops and I'olicc Commissions reflected no credit on the Government's administration. He controverted the statement that the Government's expenditure of public woiks was the thief factor in increasing the value of lands. This was principally due to tho prices of staple products obtained in the Home markets.

Mr ETiL, in reply to Mr Herdman, adduced figures to prove that the industries of the Dominion were on tho up grade. Tho loan offices had been doing a flourishing business. He defended the public departments from the aspersions cast upon them by Mr Herdman, whoso charges of corruption and maladministration were easily met.

Mr HKRRIES criticised the Government's loan transactions, and said the floating of the loans was not satisfactory. The debenture stock was getting ahead of tho inscribed stock, the proportion of tho latter having .steadily increased since 1800. Regarding the railways, he admitted that the net interest on the cost of construction, so far as the North Island railways were concernod, had increased during this present- year, but in tho south it liaj decreased considerably. No trace of the •retrenchment scheme promised by the Government was to be found in'the Estimates. He was in agreement with the graduated incomo tax. He hoped that when gaming legislation was placed before the House the Government would consult men who knew something about the subject. Personally, he was willing to assist ill passing proper legislation to regulate sporting.

Sir J. G. WARD, in replying, said that Mi' Massey, in referring to the increase in Iho public debt had overlooked the assets. He blamed Mr Massey for onesidedness in criticising the Government's proposals and attempting to Jiiisi eprcsent the truo state of affairs. He would advise Mr Herdman to study humility and not convey tlio impression that ho "(Mr Herdman) untried and inexperienced as he was : n administration, could improve on the work of the present Ministry. This did m.S sound well. Referring to Mr Aliens criticism of the Government's finance, the Prime Minister characterised this as contemptiblo and calculated to mislead the public. Mr Allen, in dealing with the superannuation scheme, had deliberately misrepresnted tho facts, and had betrayed a wilful prejudice. Regarding the public buildings votes on the Estimates referred to bv Mr Allen, these included the ordinary current expenses, which would go on irrespective of new buildings. It would i.ave cost tlio Government £3000 a year for rental had the Governor not placed his residence at the disposal of Parliament, and the money spent on aitsiing the structure was well spent. Referring' to Mr Herdman's statement as to the retrenchment scheme, lie said the Government had not yet completed that, but it wsu carrying it out with decency, and having regard to the interests of those concerned. The Opposition's cry that the country was going to the dogs was unjustified, and did infinite iniury to the country abroad. Mr Allen, while charging tho Government with extravagance, had. asked it to spend huge sums on .Parliament buildings, on the Roxburgh railway, and on other unnecessary railways, amounting in all to over 2J- millions, in the last 15 months. This was a gentleman who sai 1 lii (Sir J. G. Ward 1 ) was a false financial guide. He could only term Mr Allen's actions as political hypocrisy. Mr Allen, while talking about the increase in the : Estimates' this year, had ignored tho million spent on acquiring the Manawatu line and the fact that many economies were being effected in connection with the public service. Replying to Mr Herries, the Prime Ministei claimed that no ' mistake had been made by him in the carrying out of the financial "business. of the country. Touching on the debate on the land question, the Prime Minister said that those who had already spoken on the subject were not acquainted with tho facte, and had been beating the air. When he was a member of the Ballance Ministry, prior to 1892, there was practically only one tenure in operation, and that was the freehold. The 999 years' lease was brought ill to block the freehold. The men who were now praising the late Sir John M'Kcnzio's policy had bitterly opposed Iran when he was in the House. There woro only 375 leases under the renewable lease. He denied that the Government was surrendering :ts leasehold principles., No such suggestion was made in the Budget, He advised the members who had spoken on the debate to wait for further details of the Goiernment's land proposals. He was amazed at the statement that the Government had shown a change of front. Tho great majority of the members of the Liberal party since Mt Balance's time had been in favour of the optional system. While they had nine million acres set aside as endowments, they also had t-lw optional system in operation,'and two millions of Native lands to ho opened, lie would say that the leaseholders should realise that in future the country would obtain a larger revenue from the lauds and secure a share of the increased values. During the time the Government had been in ollice 33,783 people had been settled on land aggregating 8,416,000 acres, with an average of 219 acres per head; vet they

were told that the Government had not heei doing anything to put the people on tho land. This could never have been done had the Government- not provided the capital at a low rale of interest. The primage duties wero designed to provide funds for defence, and amounted to lkl per head until 1911; yet this had been made political capital of. As a result of the Government's financial proposals he believed there wou'.d bo a surplus of half amillion. I'liis would jive work to the labouring classes and reduce the necessity for borrowing. The Houso then went into Committee of Supply, and Mr Massey moved to report progress. The House rose at 0.5 a.m.