LAND SETTLEMENT

Southland Times, Issue 14578, 19 November 1910, Page 5

LAND SETTLEMENT

A HEATED DEBATE THE PREMIErT SUBMITS. (From Our Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, November IS. The prosposals of the Prime Minister to discharge the Land Settlement Finance Bill from the Order Paper raised quite a long and at times acrimonious debate in the House of Representatives this afternoon. The Legislative Council had, among other amendments, struck out clause 10, which provided that no person could hold more tjian one section under the Act, and when the Premier’s proposal to kill the Bill was made, Mr Massey protested on the ground that the measure provided for a limitation of the freehold. Shortly after the debate commenced, Mr A. \y. Hogg (Masterton) made some strong references to the late. Sir John Hall in connection with the Hororata Estate, to which Mr C, A. C. Hardy (Selwyn) made a heated reply, concluding with the remark: “Why should lion, members be called honourable when they do in the House what they would not do outside?” Mr G. Laurenson (Lyttelton) twitted the Opposition with Its new advocacy of non-aggregation. If it was serious in Its advocacy, he remarked, it would receive the support of the radical section of the House, and it could secure its end by doubling the land tax. Striking Figures.

Mr Laurenson went on to show how “damnably” the present system is working in Taranaki. The average size of a holding is 227 acres, and the old-age pensioners number one to every 115 of the population. In the Wellington district the holdings average 375 acres and its old-age pensioners are one to 106 of the population. In Canterbury the average size of holdings is 546 acres, and in Canterbury there is one old-age pensioner to every 54 of the population. These are ominous figures, said Mr Laurenson. They ought to commend themselves to the Prime Minister. The Hon. T. Y. Duncan went for Mr Hogg in vigorous style. Mr Hogg, he said, had never been able or manly enough to get a freehold for himself. Mr Hogg: ”1 am not a land grabber. I have had the opportunity as often as you.” Mr Duncan: "If other people left the land as idle as you, who would pay the cost of running the Dominion? They ought to do the same with you as bees do to the drones in a hive —throw them out. (Laughter.)” It pained him, he said, to hear such extravagant statements made. Aggregation was not going on as some members would have them believe: in fact, the opposite was the case. A lively interlude.

At this stage things became somewhat .lively. “The Leader of the Opposition said he did not care one straw about, clause 10, remarked. Mr Stallworthy (Kaipara) (Who was evidently heated)'. “That is not correct,” declared Mr Massey. Mr Stallworthy: “He said he did not card about clause 10.” Mr Massey': “I ask that that statement be withdrawn. It is absolutely incorrect.” Someone said: “It is quite true.”

Mr Massey; “I say It Is not true." Mr Stallworthy: “I will accept ihe statement of the lion, member and disbelieve my own ears.” Mr Massey: "Hear, hear.”

Mr Ross: “I am not exactly in order, hut I would like to say that -when this question came before the House 1 distinctly heard a-remark from the Opposition benches to the effect that they did not care one straw for clause 10.” Mr Masesy; “Who said so?” Mr Stallworthy: “I will aiccpt the Leader of the Opposition’s statement that he did not make it. I mistook the voice. It was made from the front rank of the Opposition benches. Mr Stallworthy proceeded to make a somewhat heated attack on the Opposition for not voting solid on party lines. “If,” he added, “there is a servile party in this House they sit on the other side,” Mr Hardy: “We know what we are after.” A Member; “You are after it for a long time.” Mr Stallworthy: “I am after nothing, but the good of my country. I have never been approached by any Minister to give my vote this way or that.” Mr Massey: "Not necessary.”

Mr Jas. Allen (Bruce) assured Mr Stallworthy that he would be very much happier when he allied himself with a party that had a policy it could stick to. The reason why members on that aide of the House voted as they nearly always did was this—.

Mr Ell (Christchurch); “Because you resist everything." Mr Allen: “What we do resist is the inequity of things. We do not resist the good. The honourable gentleman knows perfectly well that during- this session we have helped the Government to get through Bills that it could not have got through without our help. This very Bill was put through the House with our assistance. What we are resisting now is the hack-down of the Government. If we could have resisted all the back-downs of the Government this session, we would have done splendid service to the Dominion; but it is Impossible to do so—they come so frequently and they are .so patent to everybody, and that is why the honourable member is so unhappy and so angry. One day he has to vote for the Government because it pretends it has some principle and the next day the Government goes back on it and he has to back down. He feels hurt. I should feel hurt under similar conditions. I hope the time will come when he will be in the happy position of having a leader upon-whom he can rely: then lie won’t lie angry, liecause he ha-s to change his vote.” Mr T. E. Taylor (Christchurch) strongly urged the Government to bring down a Land Bill nest session which would array the leasehold and freehold members of the Government and the Opposition in defined ranks. Mr G. W. Ilussell (Avon) moved the adjournment of the debate. Mr Jas. Allan called the attention of the Speaker to the fact, that a member had remarked: “It is a piece of pure hypocrisy.”

Mr Speaker: “The honourable member must withdraw that remark. It is out of order." "

Mr T. B. Taylor (Christchurch); “I withdraw the remark. Did you hear the circumstances under which it was made? The member for Bruce said that the Opposition had always been’ In favour of stopping the aggregation of large estates, and I said that it was a piece of pure hypocrisy. If the words are not in order, I withdraw t ham." Mr J. Allen: "I said that for a good many years the Opposition had been in favour of doing away with the aggregation of large estates.” Mr Taylor: “I am very glad to hear it.”

j\lr Russell; “it he would iook up Hansard for a few years he would see the utter Incorrectness of the statement he has made.” Mr Massey said that he was opposed lo the adjournment, because he believed that the motion was not a proper and straightforward method of settling the difficulty. Sir Joseph Ward: “Hear hear.” Mr Massey claimed that he bad been in favour of closer settlement ever since he entered Parliament in. ISIH, and the members of his party had similar convictions. He held that, if any member of the House had been inconsistent, it was the member for Avon. Mr Russell (angrily): “I’ll handle you without the gloves next time.” Mr Massey: ‘T hope the honourable gentleman will not lose his temper and get excited. He does not look to advantage when he is out of temper.”

Mr Russell; “You are brave when I have ray mouth shut.” Avon’s member was flushed with anger; he glowered at Mr Massey and pul on his .hat dramatically. Sir Joseph Ward, in opposing the adjournment, made a tirade against the Opposition for its electrically-touched,, aimless, senseless laughter. They vote together and they laugh together, he said. "It is too funny for words." (Opposition laughter.) Mr Poland argued that the representatives elected of the people should not accept the dictation of another place. Mr Ross (Pahiatua) declared that the Liberal Party in power to-day was living on the traditions of the past. In this dispute about the Land Settlement Finance Bill the Government was departing from Liberal principles. If it was sought to enable one man in the Legislative Council to defeat the wishes of members of the House of Representatives, he would not help the Government with his vote. The Cabinet had blocked one of the cardinal features of the Liberal

party—the movement against aggregation of large estates^—and he would tell the Government straight out from the shoulder that he would not vote for the upsetting of Liberal principles. It was time for both parties to combine to establish the principle that they would not be run by the Crown Law Officers. He expressed the hope that the country would have a Minister of Lands with a knowledge of the people’s requirements. An Interjection by the Hon. R. McKenzie drew some fire on the head of the Minister of Public Works, and the House enjoyed, Mr Ross's patter at the Minister’s ■ expense. The Hon. R. Mackenzie said that the Liberal Government had for twenty years been using every possible endeavour to bring about the breaking up of large estates and to prevent aggregation. Such a Bill as this was intended to facilitate work in this direction, and it was regrettable to find Messrs Ross and Poland opposing such a proposition. Sir Joseph Ward said that the policy of the Government had been to prevent the aggregation of large estates. The records of Parliament proved that the Opposition had used every possible endeavour to block legislation in this direction. The Opposition was hacked by. the big landowners, as was the'organ of the Opposition. Now that there was a danger of the Bill being hung up the Opposition was in fear and trembling lest it should go forth to the country that they had been responsible for its being shelved. They were : hiding behind the half dozen members of the Government party who wanted this Bill amended at clause 10, and, sinking principles, they had used these members in an attempt to give the Government a slap in. the face. It was only by deleting clause 10 that a proper title could be given those who took up land in the manner prescribed. He would drop the Bill rather than accept it with the exclusion of clause 10. However, when, the House resumed after dinner. Sir Joseph Ward agreed to retain the Bill and the battle ended, J