Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. [Per Press Association.] Wellington, July 9. The House met at 2.30 p.m, Mr T. Pa rata resumed the debate on the Address-in-Reply. He refuted t!m claims that the legislation of the Government had been beneficial to the native race. He contrasted the areas held by the natives and by the large pakeha holders, contending that the agitation for settlement of Maori lands was only a ruse to draw off attention from the holdings of Europeans who ow ned not blocks, but small dominions. The legislation of the Government was a lure to tbe Maoris to sell their land and divest themselves of their property. He instanced a ease in which a. young Maori had sold some thousands of acres, for which he received £27,000. Now all lie had to show for it was race-horses and a lew motorears. The native race was handicapped in the House by the fact that the Minister did not understand the native mind, and had no experience of native thought, while Dr. Poinare had broken bis pledges and given a clishonored vote against the Liberals. Hon. Dr. Pomare quoted from the [maiden speech of Mr Parata, in which he stated that the native policy of the Liberals was an “absolute public scandal.” In the same speech he had advocated Europeanising native land. Since then he had evidently changed his.views. Perhaps his political morality had been tampered with since then. Mr Parata’s great grievance was the Ngaitahu claims in the South’ Island. What had the Liberal Government, which the then hon. gentleman’s father had supported for 22 years, done to settle the Ngaitahu .claims? He defended the Government legislation affecting the West Coast reserves, which he claimed did justice to the natives as against the legislation of the Liberals, which took away 130,000 acres from them for all time. He described a deputation which he had introduced to Sir Joseph Ward and Sir James Carroll, when they were shown a map on the wall,and the Native Minister showed them a spot which he said represented 18,000 acres. These 18,000 acres, Sir James Carroll said, he would use as a handkerchief to wipe away the tears of thcTaranaki natives. To show the hypocric’y of politics at that very time, they are told, this Government had a Bill prepared to give ‘that land away to someone else. He was not elected to support Sir James Carroll, but to right the wrongs of his people. If the Maori was weeping it was not for grief, but for joy at the fact that they had a Government in power that would give them justice. Mr Hindmarsh claimed that the first duty of Parliament was to settle New Zealand, but the fact was that 541 people who owned £18,000,000 worth of unimproved land had too much influence in th> House, and though many Government supporters r-.new what ought to be done they wore powerless to do it. The vital question of the moment was land settlement, and the way to it was to burst up the big estates by means of the graduated tax. M r Campbell said the country was to be congratulated upon a good year. The financial position had improved since the present Government came into office.

The House resumed at 7.30 p.m. Mr McCombs referred to the Federation of Labor, comparing it with the Employers’ Federation. He held that the Federation of Labor was a defensive organisation, while the Employers’ Federation was an offensive one. The awowed policy of the Employers’ Federation was to attack the workers. Strikes, wars and lock-outs were appeals to force which left it doubtful whether the, side of right could succeed. It was plain to him that an attempt was being made to make political capital out of the srike. It was the shipping companies who had torn up the agreement, because the agreement, which affected eight groups of workers, had been broken by one, or by oneeighth of the workers. It was the Empliyers’ Federation who had urged the shipping companies to break the agreement, and.the Premier had aided and, abetted the attempt to deny to the workers the right granted by the Parliament of New Zealand. Mr Wilson said the proposal for a progressive reading policy was to his mind the most important announcement in the Governor’s Speech. Mr Hindmarsh had attacked the man on Hie land, but had offered no solution of the settlement question. In increasing the land tax they should take the class of land into consideration, ft was the rich land near the railway stations which should lie taxed. They wanted to put the small man upon dairying land. Fnder Mr Massey’s administration settlement was going on apace, but there was move than settlement required. People wanted proper access to their land. It was unfair to have men without roads when they were paying interest on roading from the time they took up t]|,Mr land. Development of the country was demanded, and they should come down with a bold policy to borrow enough money to carry them over five or six years.

Mr F. A. Smith CWaitaki) said the Red Feds were out to break every agreement'entered into. The Prime Minister bad done all he could to settle the strike, while the utterances of the leader of the Opposition had led the strikers to expect support from his party. The farmers wore prepared to see that their produce was not held up on the wharves. He contended that the Government party was not against Labor. He supported tbe native policy of the Massey Government. Mr Lee, in the course of his reply, said the criticism of the Govern;

'meat laid been of the feeblest kind. He then proceeded to deal with Sir Joseph Ward’s speech regarding Ids proposed Imperial Council at the last Imperial Conference, reading copiously from the official report and ridiculing the vagueness of the proposals submitted. A motion that a respectful ’ address be presented to the Governor was moved at 11.52 p.m. After Sir Joseph Ward had made a personal explanation, in which he declared that Hr Lee had misquoted the official report of the Imperial Conference, so conveying a w ( rong impression of his (Sir Joseph’s) speech delivered by him at that conference, the motion was carried. The House rose at midnight.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/STEP19140710.2.3

Bibliographic details

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXIX, Issue 67, 10 July 1914, Page 2

Word Count
1,054

PARLIAMENT. Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXIX, Issue 67, 10 July 1914, Page 2

PARLIAMENT. Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXIX, Issue 67, 10 July 1914, Page 2

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert