THE LAND SETTLEMENT FINANCE BILL.

Ohinemuri Gazette, Volume XXI, Issue 2724, 28 November 1910, Page 3

THE LAND SETTLEMENT FINANCE BILL.

REAGGREGATION OF ES-

TAXES

SPEECH BY MR POLAND

The following is the Hansard report of the remarks made in the House by Mr Poland, M.P., and which were adversely criticised by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Works: Mr Poland (Ohinemun) wished to make a few remarks with regard to the proposal of the right honourable gentleman to drop the Land Settlement Finance Bill. He was sorry the Minister had come to that decision or had asked the House to come to that decision because he thought there had been nothing done by the House to justify the right honourable gentleman in moving such a motion When this Bill was before the House it was treated in a generous way by both sides. It was recognised that the Bill was necessary to amend provisions they had put on the statute book last year in order to make the Act more workable. It was the desire of Parliament that it should be given effect to so that land settlement associations could be formed to acquire ihe areas which they desired to sub-divide in order that the work of the close settlement policy of this country should be carried out. There were certain defects discovered when the Act came to be put into operation last year, as usually happened when a new policy measure came in, and the Govern-

ment in order to impiove matters brought in this amendment of last year's Bill. During the discussion on the Bill the member for Pahiatua pointed out to the Prime Minister what, in his opinion, was a great flaw, and that was this: there was no provision made whereby the reaggregation of the land which was divided up under this scheme could be prevented, and he urged the Prime Minister to put in some clause which would prevent for the future any

of those persons who took up the various sections into which any estate

might be cut up from purchasing his neighbours' sections, and so acquiring for himself the whole of the land which had been cut up. The Prime Minister recognised the desirability of such a clause being put in the Bill, and he, himself, brought in and moved the clause, which is now clause 10, and which the Upper House had struck out. That clause was agreed to without a

division by the House. The Bill was sent to the Upper House with that clause in it. The Upper House struck the clause out, and when the Bill came back to the house yesterday aiternoon the Prime Minister moved, that the amendment made in the Upper House be agreed to. The member for Pahiatua asked Mr Speaker's permission to move to disagree with-the Council in that respect, but as the honourable gentleman had already spoken on the main question he was ruled out ot order. He (Mr Poland) then moved, that the striking out of clause 10 be disagreed with. His object in doing this was that a conference might be held between managers representing both chambers, that the matter might be discussed, and that a decision of the managers should be arrived at, so that the House mi^ht have placed before it the reasons of the Upper House for striking out the clause, and could then decide whether to agree or

not. There was nothing in the motion carried on the previous day to say that the clause must go into the Bill. The effect of the motion was to provide for a conference so that the arguments pro and con might be gone into ; and, considering the importance of the clause, it was a reasonable proposition. He was astounded at the action of the

Government in refusing to agree to the recommendation. The argument of the Prime Minister on the previous afternoon was that the clause was not workable ; but the principle of the clause was absolutely unanswerable. It was a principle that ior years past had guided the policy of the Liberal party in regard to land. The great principle of landsettlement was not that ot freehold or leasehold. The principle that should guide the people was to" enable the greatest possible number of people to get on the land, to prevent the aggregation of large areas in the hands of one man, and to assist every poor man in the country to obtain a bit of land on which to make a living. That was the principle underlying clause 10, and if

that clause, as placed in the Bill, was not workable it was the duty of the Government and of the law draftsman to make it workable, so that the decision of the House mijfht be carried into effect. It was not part of the duty of the Upper House to dictate the policy of the country with regard to land-settlement, and that was what they were doing. They were telling the House —the representatives of the people, elected on a franchise which was not excelled in any part of the world—to agree to strike out a cardinal principle in the policy of the I Liberal Government, and the House had the sad spectacle of the Ministers who were at present running the country and who were allegedly supporting what was a liberal policy in land-settlement actually asking the House to agree to amendments made by gentlemen in another place who were not in any sense representatives of the people, who had got into that position in which they were able to strike out important clauses adopted by the House, and who got there by various methods and by various roads. To say that the House should

agree to an important alteration in one of its Bills without a word of protest was really shocking. They had not asked the Government or the Upper House to strike out or reinstate the

clause. They simply asked the Government to agree to a conference between managers from the two chambers. He said they had every right to ask for that, and if it was not to be granted to them the Bill ought to go, and the Government ought to take the responsibility of the Bill being cast aside altogether. But he for his part refused to agree to the motion of the Prime Minister that they should strike this Bii! off the order paper. He said they had a duty to perform as representatives of the people. It was not a party question to his mind. He knew the Opposition party almost to a man voted for the amendment to have this matter referred to a conference, but that in his opinion was not the paramount question. The paramount question above and beyond the party question was whether this House or the Upper House was to rule ; and for his part whilst he stood in this House he

was going to vote that this House should rule in every case. If they made mis-

takes here, and these mistakes were

pointed out at a conference with the other chamber, and they saw they had made an error in regard to any particular Bill, he was prepared to agree to improve the measure. But they had not had an opportunity of doing so in this

instance. He wanted to say in regard to this particular clause 10 that it simply stated this: that where five men had cut up an area of land amongst themselves in five sections then in the future

no one man amongst these five men should be allowed to purchase his neighbour's land. But it did not prevent that man or any of these men going outside and purchasing freehold land from some other man, or leasing Native land—it did not restrict him in any way except in regard to the particular block he himselt was a shareholder in. He said seeing that the whole policy of the Land Settlement Act, and of this and Settle-

ment Finance Act, was to cut up large areas of land to enable a greater number of small settlers to get on the land, it was only reasonable and proper they should insert a clause to prevent any man, by his wealth, and by the difficulties of his neighbours, from purchasing their land and aggregating the whole ot that land, and so probably compelling future Governments to repurchase it for closer settlement purposes. He hoped the House would not agree to the motion of the Prime Minister to strike this Bill off the order paper, but would adhere to what was decided on yesterday, and have a conference with the Upper House.