PARLIAMENTARY NEWS.

Opunake Times, Volume I, Issue 10, 3 August 1894, Page 2

PARLIAMENTARY NEWS.

HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES. Wellington, July 81. The House met at 2.30 p.m. LEAVE OF ABSENCE. Further leave of absence for a month was granted to Sir George Grey. LAND FOR SETTLEMENT BILL. Mr Graham resumed the debate on the second reading of the Lands for Settlement Bill. After complimenting Mr McKenzie on the speech he made on introducing the measure, he said he did not think it a great misfortune that the Bill had been rejected by the Legislative Council last year, as the Bill was greatly improved this session. ReTerring to the debate on the measure on Saturday morning, he considered it was wrong to endeavour to rush a Bill through tha House without full discussion, aud he disclaimed that members who wished to discuss the Bill were actuated by any desire to harass the Minister for Lands. Although he was a supporter of the Government, he must strongly protest against being regarded as a simple automaton. He agreed with the Government that the House should now give power to take land for the settlement of the people, but that power must be exercised with the ufmost caution and discretion. Mr Hutchison (Dunedin)[ regretted that the Minister for Lands had forgotten himself on Saturday morning. He strongly supported the principle of this Bill, inasmuch as it would meet the demand for land for the people. As to the acquisition of properties, he contended that the welfare of the State was far above the interests of any individual whatever. He supported the lease in perpetuity. Mr J. W. Kelly disagreed with the constitution of the Board. In his opinion, the best Board for the purpose would be the court provided for in the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Bill. He had supported the lease in perpetuity on the assurance that tbe unearned increment would be obtained through the land tax, but he had regretted that vote ever since, and would now support any amendment to have a periodical valuation made on the eternal lease. He hoped that the Minister would not take this as a personal reflection on himself, for he (Mr Kelly) was one of the warmest supporters that Mr McKenzie had in the House. Mr Crowther regretted very much the attack that had been made on the early settlers of the colony, and said that it seemed an unpardonable offence in the eyes of several honourable members for a man to succeed who had purchased land in the early days of the colony. As far as the Bill itself was concerned, he saw nothing seriously wrong with it, especially if a few necessary amendments were made in Committee. Mr Hall-Jones felt a special interest in the Bill, as there was not a district in the colony where land was more required for settlement than Canterbury, and he hoped if the Bill became law that part of the colony would not be forgotten. The Bill would go a long way towards solving the unemployed difficulty, b«t he objected to the land being disposed of in such large areas. He was also opposed to the member for a district having a seat on the Land Purchase Board.

Mr Wilson was not last year in favour of the compulsory resumption of land by the Grown, but his views had somewhat changed since that time, There was no denying the fact that the cjlony had pronouuced emphatically in favour of a measure of this kind. He should therefore support thjß second reading of the Bill. Mr Hogg welcomed Mr Wilson as a convert to the measure, and thought that the Minister was to be congratulated on the general expression of opinion in favour of the Bill. He was a strong supporter of the eternal lease. Mr Carncross, while deprecating the abuse that had been heaped on large land owners, said he thought the time had arrived for legislation to prevent the accumulation of large landed properties. He was in accord with the principles of the Bill, but joined in the chorus of objectors to the member of a district having a seat on the Board. He thought, however, that if they had a Bill to deal with the special circumstances that had arisen in Nelson and Marlborough, instead of a general measure, it would prove more acceptable to the country at large. Mr Carncross, continuing his remarks,- urged the Government to purchase land within a convenient distance of the cities, and give men an opportunity of getting on small holdings, of say, one, two or three acres, which would lead them to leave the cities, and bring up their families under much better circumstances. He eulogised the Minister for Lands for his yeoman services in the Liberal cause, and said he would have his best support in carrying this Bill through all its stages. Mr Fraser supported the principle of the Bill, but hoped that the power under it would not be used vindictively or wantonly. He thought that no property should be bought till the House had an opportunity of voting upon it, and if an amendment of this kind were inserted the Bill would work more satisfactorily. His idea was that the Bill should be dealt with outside of politics altogether by an independent Board. Mr McKenzie (Buller) thought that the Bill went entirely in the right direction, in that it would provide land for the landless and penniless. He supported the constitution of the Board, and expressed the opinion that if the present Government remained in power a few years more they would obtain really liberal land laws. Mr Willis said if they were at all justified in borrowing money it should be spent on the purchase of land for settlement. The colony had suffered for many years from the land monopoly, but he was pleased to see that

that monopoly would be shortly broken down. He was greatly opposed to the lease in perpetuity. . Mr Steward said if he were not the father of the Bill he, at least, was its grandfather or great-grandfather. Referring to Mr Eraser's contention that no purchase should be made till the House affirmed it by resolution, he pointed out that that was tried in 1885, but was found to be migatory owing to the length of time that might elapse before the House met to give authority for the purchase. The principle of this Bill had been assented to in the Imperial Parliament seven years ago, and it could not therefore be said that the Minister for Lands was now asking for any extraordinary powers. Mr Allan said he had no doubt of the good intentions of the Minister of Lands, but he objected to a good deal of his land policy. As to the principle of this Bill, if it meant the purchase of land in small areas for settlement purposes, he should not object to it, He had voted against the lease in perpetuity in last year's Bill and would do so again. Mr Duthie would vote against the second reading of this Bill, believing, as he did, there was no necessity for it. He condemned the land policy of the Government, and said their whole action had been to embarass the large land owners of the colony. Dr Newman would vote for the second reading of the Bill. He suggested to the Minister that he should take £50,000 out of £250,000 and spend it in buying land in the neighborhood of large towns in holdings of not more than twenty _acres. It should also be provided that no public house should be erected on any lands sold under this Bill. Mr Laruach held that the people should have the option of taking up land on any tenure they wished, but the State should fix the area. It was his opinion that as long as large holdings existed taxation in this colony would never be fairly or equitably borne. He did not quite approve o the constitution of the Board, and a good substitution could be made by putting in a Stipendiary Magistrate instead of the member for the district. The County Chairman might also be left out of the Board. He hoped the Minister would stand by his Bill. He would have preferred £500,000 being set apart each year for land purchase instead of £250,000, which would only purchase 40,000 acres. Mr McKenzie (Clntha) agreed with Mr Larnach that a man should be allowed to acquire the freehold of his land if he so desired, and he congratulated the member for Tuapeka on having supported the principle of the Land Bill introduced by Mr Richardson. He (Mr McKenzie) supported the lease in perpetuity, as it was practically a freehold. The Bill was read a second time.