N.Z. PARLIAMENT.

Otago Witness, Issue 3112, 5 November 1913, Page 55

N.Z. PARLIAMENT.

MONDAY, OCTOBER 11. The House resumed in committee at 2.30. THE LAND BILL. Mr WITTY moved an amendment to clause 26 to pi’ovide that freehold shall apply to privately-owned lands, Mr MASSEY said the amendment was irrelevant, as the Bill only dealt with Crown lands. After some discussion as to whether or not the amendment was relevant the Chairman ruled that it was not germane to the clause. Mr WITTY thereupon moved to take the Speaker’s ruling on tne point. The SPEAKER ruled that the amendment was not relevant to the clause, but probably could be moved at the end of the 13*H. The committee then resumed. When the stonew’all was lifted Mr SIUEY proceeded to discuss clause 25. He wanted to know whether the lands affected by this clause became national endowment lands, if they were converted into renewable leases, and if so how were thev going to be resumed. The PRIME MINISTER said he thought they would become endowment lands, but he was not certain on the point. If they were held under a special Act they would not, but in any case it did not affect the endowments because the lands were far below the nature of endowment lands, and if resumed the endowments would be recouped out of other lamls. If the lands were resumed they would be taken under clause 21 of the Mining Act. In reply to Mr Miller Mr MASSEY said he was of opinion that coal should have been included as a mineral under the clause, and he had given instructions to tile Law Draughtsman to see that the minerals wore secured to the State and the mining rights to the miners. Mr COLVIN said his constituents had asked Jiirn to explain how it was that the freehold was being given in the Hauraki district and denied to all other mining districts. Personally, he -was opposed to the freehold being granted in any mining district, but he desired to know why his constituents were excluded from this Bill.

Mr MASSEY said the reason was plain. Ho was not acquainted with the land in all the mining districts. He knew this land, and believed this was the best thing to do with it. He proposed to visit tire West Coast in January, and if Mr Colvin could show him that his constituents should be given the freehold he would be pleased to do so. Mr CRAIG IK said he was opposed to the sale of any State lands This was a freehold Bill. A freehold Bill was a bad Bill, and this was the worst clause in the Bill.

Mr ROBERTSON repudiated the imputation that the Labour party had been guilty of obstruction. Mr PAYNE demanded that the House should know exactly what minerals the holders of the fee simple were going to get. If the State was going to be robbed the xioufie should know to what extent it was going to bo robbed by the friends of the party in power. Mr HAN AN contended that the Prime Minister should postpone the clause until the new clause to be drafted by the Solicitor-general was before the fiouse. The Prime Minister had admitted that this clause was unsatisfactory, and yet he was asking the House to vote on a clause that admittedly had to be amended. The people of the dominion were particularly anxious to see the minerals of the country reserved to the Crown, but this clause was not clear upon this point.

Sir JOSEPH WARD said that he would vote against the clause, because he was not satisfied that the rights of miners were secured after the freehold had been purchased. He quoted the case in which the Kauri Timber Company obtained a judgment against miners prospecting on their freehold in 1906. He was not satisfied that the clause as it stood safeguarded the rights of the miners. Mr WEBB argued that there was no guarantee that the freehold would not before long be given in every mining district in the country, and when the mipers would be completely at the mercy of the land owners. No miners’ representative could ever permit such a condition of affairs to come about. Mr SEDDON contended that the clause was go full of legal difficulties that it ought to bs postponed until the Solicitor-general could unravel the complications with which it bristled at every point. After 22 hours’ discussion a division was taken at 5.20, when the voting was as follows : Ayes (34) —Allen, Anderson, Bollard (2), Bradney, Buick, Campbell, Coates, Dickson, Escott, Fisher, Fraser, Guthrie, Harris, Herdman, Herries, Hine, Lee, Mander, Massey, Nosworthy, Okey, Pomare, Reed, Rhodes (2), Scott, F. H.

Smith, Statham, Sykes, Cl. M. Thomson, Wilkinson, Wilson, Young. Noes ’ (28); —Buddo, Clark, Colvin, Craigie, Dickie, Ell, Forbes, Glover, Hanan, Hind marsh, Laurenson, Macdonald, Millar, A. K. Newman, Ngata, Parata, Payne, Poland, Robertson Seddon, Sidey, Ward, Webb, Wilford, Witty.

Pairs.—Ayes—Pearce, Hunter, Bell, and Buchanan. Noes —Rangihiroa, Brown, M'Callum, Myers. The committee then proceeded to consider clause 26 —the granting the fee simple, L.1.P., and grazing runs. The House resumed at 8 o’clock. Mr HANAN called for a division on that part of clause 26 dealing with small grazing runs. This resulted by 40 to 18 in favour of that portion of the clause being retained. Mr FORBES objected to parting with blocks of land which when first leased were not capable of further subdivision, but now owing to the introduction of railways and roads were so capable. In reply to an objection by Mr Robertson that' under the Bill owners would be able to aggregate their holdings Mr MASSEY declared that a person wishing to acquire Crown lands would have to satisfy a competent tribunal that such acquisition would not be prejudicial to the public interest. If this Act did not prove satisfactory, and he believed it would, he would strengthen it. He hoped to bring down another Land Bill next year. Later speaking in favour of the principle of freehold Mr Massey said that he wanted to prevent the damnkble system that had been in force in England for hundreds of years. He wanted to make it possible for every man to farm his own land. Mr WEBB opposed the clause on the same grounds that he had opposed every clause —that of protest against the Government parting with the freehold. The system of freehold meant that the great mass of people would be landless, and that they would be condemned to everlasting Hell. Mr MASSEY' refused the suggestion by Mr Hanan to insert a provision against the owners of the fee simple sub-letting. He did not want to spoil the Bill. Replying to Mr Forbes Mr Massey intimated having drafted a new clause providing for the reclassification of Crown lands. He again reminded members that next session he would bring down a consolidating and amending Land Bill, and if they knew of any evils or hardships existing under the present conditions he hoped they would bring forward amendments in order to effect a remedy. He stated he considered it reasonable to continue sitting until they had passed clause 40, as most of the intervening clauses were machinery clauses.

Sir JOSEPH WARD, in replying, said that if they got to' clause 40 before, 2 a.m. he would personally congratulate him. He advised the Prime Minister to take care of himself and not have too many late nights. Messrs WEBB and HINDMARSH voiced their strong objections to the freehold clause, both members submitting that the question should be referred to the country. The House divided on the clause, the voting being 36 to 21. The clause with minor amendments was then passed. Mr MASSEY agreed to increase the frontage for residential sections in urban and suburban areas from 33ft to 4011. A further amendment was passed providing that aliens shall be allowed to acquire land in New Zealand where they are subjects of any treaties between their own country and Great Britain. The countries concerned were Uruguay, Paraguay, Greece, and Italy. The proposal as to the extension of time for the purchase, of Crown or settlement land upon deferred payment of nine to 10 years was passed without opposition. The clause dealing with the sale of settlement land by auction was amended to read that the deposit money shall be 5 per cent, and the balance at the same rate per annum. The clause was passed, progress reported, and the House rose at midnight.

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 14. The Legislative Council met at 2.30 p.m. LOCAL ELECTIONS AND POLLS BILL. The Hon. Mr BELL moved the third reading of the Local Elections and Polls Amendment Bill. He believed, he said, that in its present form the Bill would be welcomed by local authorities throughout the dominion. The Hon. Mr PAUL warmly commended the Bill as a means of purifying the ed.v duct of local elections. The Bill was read a third time and passed. The Council adjourned at 2.45 till Thursday. The House met at 2.30 p.m. REPLIES TO QUESTIONS. In replying to Sir Joseph Ward the PRIME MINISTER said that he had hoped to lav the dominion position regarding the naval policy before the House this week, but circumstances appeared to militate against that action. It was hardly correct to talk of the Government’s proposals. What he proposed to do was to lay before the House the position from the making of the 1909 agreement to the present date, together with the correspond ence which was not confidential. All he could tell the House was what the Govern ment proposed and what the present position was. The Government proposed to deal with Customs duties this session. It must not be thought, however, they were going to revise the whole of the tariff. What was intended was a readjustment in certain directions. Regarding the electoral law, he stated that the Government’s Bill was under consideration and would be brought down this session. The second ballot would be repealed. Sir JOSEPH WARD; What do you intend to put in its place?

Mr MASSEY : “The right hon. gentleman must wait and see.” The Public Works Statement was well on its way to completion and should be down shortly. LAND B.LL. The House went into committee on the Land Bill. In clause 41 .Mr ESCOTT moved to ex tend the term during which a mortgagee might hold L d without being required to make the declaration prescribed by section 342 of “The Land Act, 1908,” from two years to five. The PRIME MINISTER said he could not accept the amendment, but he would give the proposal in the Bill a year’s trial, and if at the end of that time it was found any hardship was being imposed he would be prepared to extend trie time from two years to three. Mr FORBES raised the question of the administration of the runs in the M‘Ken zie country, and said the Bill was giving a right of renewal to men who had been said to be dummies. That was not right, and the whole position should be inquired into before the clause was passed. Mr MASSEY said his policy was that one man should have only one run, and no man could get more than one run without the consent of either the board or the Minister. Mr FORBES said there were cases now where one man was holding more than one run.

Mr MASSEY admitted this, but explained that the position had arisen before he became Minister. The clauses in the Bill were the result of the conference of Crown land commissioners, and he believed 11103' would meet the requirements of the cases. Mr FORBES insisted that in return for the concessions given residence on the runs should be insisted on, as that would elimi nate the element of speculation to a great extent.

This view was strongly supported ty Messrs Anderson, Buddo, Ell. and Buxton. Mr RUSSELL argued in favour of compulsory residence, but thought the land board should have discretionary power to relax the residential conditions when absolutely necessary. The clause was passed. Considerable opposition was shown to clause 47, under which it was proposed to give the holder of a pastoral license security of tenure by giving him a renewal without competition; the rent to be adjusted by arbitration. Mr SiDEY moved to limit this concession to further licenses, and that it should not be applied to existing leases, but on a division this was lost by 43 votes to 18.

Mr RUSSPILL then contended that the clause should not be allowed to pass, as it gave perpetual right of renewal to existing holders, which was unfair to other.applicants.

Mr LEE moved that no licensee should have the right to a second licence after the expiry of the renewal granted under the clause.

Mr MacDONALD contended that Mr Lee’s amendment would preclude the children of lessees of pastoral licenses remaining on that land at the expiry of tire license. His point was that the House was contradicting itself by putting out a man who had been on his run for 20 or more years and allowing a man to come in who knew nothing of the country. Mr ANDERSON supported that argument. He hoped the committee would throw the amendment out. What they wanted was renewable lease on equitable terms.

Mr F. H. SMITH also contested the amendment. He hoped the auctioning of land would be done away with altogether. Such a method was neither good for the Crown nor the tenant. Mr LAURENSON said it seemed to him that some members thought they were legislating for runholders instead of for the community as a whole. They should see that the best price was obtained for the land.

Mr MASSEY said the question was one of tweedledee and tweedledum. Mr Lee’s amendment provided that a licensee could get a renewal of his lease, which meant 42 years’ tenure. Ho agreed that long before that period had expired everyone o i the runs would be divided up. He would ' take the voice of the committee on the matter.

Mr RUSSELL said that when the Bill was placed on the Statute Book every man who now held a run could place his right on the market, as it would vastly increase in value, and make £IO,OOO to £15,000 out of it.

The amendment was lost on the voices. Mr MASSEY said that it had been stated that some of the runs had been held hack pending the present legislation. The reason for holding back was to give the Lands Department an opportunity to ascertain whether they would be subdivided.

On a division being taken clause 47 was carried by 47 to 18. In clause 44 the owner of a lease-in-perpetuity of settlement land may purchase the fee simple. Mr LAURENSON admitted that 999 years was a blunder and the worst thing any Government ever introduced, and it was done by Sir John Mackenzie at the instance of the Conservatives. He had been so disgusted with the clamour for something different to what he proposed that he said, “all right, I’ll give yon a thousand years if the present Govern put through the Bill” he said, let t. ;. They would have to answer for it. lie had made his protest. Mr ISITT said greed lay at the bottom of the claim for freehold. Cant only lay at the bottom of talk like that. _ The claim was not a matter of sentiment, but greed. The man who wanted freehold to be able to sit by his own fire did not exist. The right w'as sought so that a man could go round the country buying farms here and selling there. That was why freehold was sought. After the supper adjournment the leaseholders continued to enter their protest against the granting of the freehold of settlement lands.

Mr M‘DONALD asked the Prime Minister if lie would either insert a clause or accept, a clause clearly limiting the area of settlement lands after the freehold had been acquired. The PRIME MINISTER read the clauses in the present Act, and declared that no more effective limitations could be devised. The division on the clause was taken st 11.40_, when the voting was: Ayes, 33; noes. 18.

A division was also called for on clause 49, extending the right of purchase over settlement lands in certain cases, but the clause was retained by 39 votes to 21. On clause 50 providing funds for the acquisition and opening up of lands for settlement, Sir Joseph Ward wanted to know why the Government was going to raise so much money—£6oo,ooo for the acquisition of lands for settlement—when it bad told the country that the money derived from the purchase of freehold would enable the Government to dispense with, borrowing for this purpose. Mr MASSEY replied that they had only given the right of acquiring the freehold over the most valuable lands, and the money would not come in from that source in a week. It would take more than a year to get the clause in full operation. So far as it had gone the results were most satisfactory. Already 700 settlers had applied for the freehold. He did not think all would apply for the freehold, but he felt certain that the majority would, and when the scheme was in full working otder ho was confident that £700,000 should come in every year from this source. In the meantime it was necessary to ask for the usual amount, but if it was not found necessary to do so it would not be spent. The clause passed without division. At 12.45 the clause (52) designed to check the aggregation of private lands was passed after a characteristic protest by Mr HINDMARSH. A number of new clauses of a- purely departmental nature were considered and passed , without amendment. At 1.30 the Bill was reported, amidst apple use from the Government benches, and the House adjourned at 1.35. ADULTERATED BUTTER. In view of the statement made about the adulteration of New Zealand butter in Vancouver .Mr Okey is asking tho Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the way New Zealand butter is being adulterated or loaded with water in Vancouver, and whether with a view of stopping this adulteration he will take steps to bring this matter before the interested authorities. WELLINGTON DOCK.’ An echo of the attempted construction of a graving dock in Wellington in 1907 was heard in the House to-day w'hen Mr T. H. Davey presented a petition from Robert Pitcaithley, formerly of Christchurch, hut now of Wellington, asking for relief. The petition represents that petitioner and his brother erected works in the Hutt Valley to supply gravel for the works, but owing to the stoppage they suffered severe financial loss and /were even ruined. Petitioner is reduced, he says, from a position of considerable mercantile standing to that of a temporary Government clerk at 10s a day. * FORGETFUL OF DIGNITY.

The dignity of Parliament found a prompt champion this evening in the Chairman of Committees when Mr J. Payne trespassed the bounds of decorum. White Mr Payne was speaking some member laughed at a remark made by him. Without attempting to frame any proper retort, Mr Payne mimicked the member with a loud and derisive nasal “Hee, he©, hee!” at which the Chamber laughed involuntarily. Mr Malcolm, as chairman, however, immediately rose, commanded Mr Payne to resume his seat, and then invited him to remember that he was ~n the New Zealand Parliament and that he must maintain its dignity. Mr Payne tried to establish his right to retort in this peculiar fashion, but the Chairman would not permit argument and ordered Mr Payne to' desist from his attempt.