PARLIAMENT.

Pahiatua Herald, Volume XVIII, Issue 4656, 9 October 1913, Page 3

PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. LAND BILL DEBATE. EUfctrio Telegraph—Press Association Wellington, Last Night. The House of Representatives met at 2.30 p.m. Mr J. H. Escott (Pahiatua) Continued the debate on the Land Bill. He contended that it was essential for the well being of the country that many more settlers than now on the land should he there. The man on the land did not only benefit himself but he benefited those in the cities too.

The Hon. J. A. Millar (Dunedin Central) said the exports were the life blood of the country and if not increased they could not get money to open up further country. The Government had no right to sell the lands for settlement. He could not understand the South Island members voting for the sale of such lands after the experience in the South, where the people had to leave for the North if they wanted to acquire a section. He combatted the action of the Government in giving existing Crown tenants the freehold. Had it not been for the leasehold there would not be hair the settlers on the land as there were at present. The land did not belong to the past or present generations, but to the future. He contended that there would be a revolution in (lie Old Country in the very near future on th - question of freehold If they wanted to get small settlement in liis country they would need to classify the country into three classes, viz., agricultural, pastoral, and dairying land. In the matter of cutting up of estates, he held that a certain time must be given those who owned more than was provided by the laws. Provision for acquiring the freehold of Crown land should also apply to private property. If such were done ho would approve of the Bill in toto despite the fact that it gave away endowments. The names of men who sold Crown lands would be cursed by the future generation. Mr Wilkinson (Egmont) said he did not believe tiiat a revolution would follow tlm sale of Crown lands. The sufferings endured by the backbloeks settlers entitled them to all increment possible. He desired to see largo estates, suitable for closer settlement. cut up for that purpose. H?

favoured a reasonable increase of the graduated tax. Mr Robertson (Otaki) said that so far as giving the freehold title was concerned he admitted some tenures of the past w r ere not as desirable as they might have been, hut the proposals of the Government were little better. He agreed that all lands should at once be classified. He hoped in the near future the party would be on the Treasury Benches which would propound a more just and equitable method of dealing with the land problem. • Mr Craigie (Timaru) held that the leasehold system had in the past been eminently successful and bad teen the means of placing many good settlers on the land. If tlrere was a referendum to-morrow on the question he was convinced the result would be against selling cue acre of Crown land. The Bill before the House w'as not a statesmanlike one.

Mr It. W. Smith (Rankitikei) said the Bill would assist a number of settlers who were labouring under hardships, hut it did not go far enough, and he was consequently disappointed. It was regrettable that it did not provide for the settlement of another acre of land. The Bill failed to provide any means by which those requiring to get on the land could attain that end. The House resumed at 7.30 p.m. Mr W. A. Veitch (Wanganui) ilo-clarc-d that the Bill was designed to build up the land-owning class and it would bo bad for New Zealand when that condition was achieved. Mr J. Hanan (Invercargill) declared that the leasehold system had l>oen responsible for settling the land of the country. Mr J, G. Coates (Kaipara) contended that the rational sentiment of the }»eopl0 was the freehold, and they would have it. M- H. Atmoro (Nelson) said the question was not tenure hut closer settlement. (Proceeding)