Mr. Reeves on the Sale of Confiscated Lands.

Auckland Star, Volume VI, Issue 1711, 12 August 1875, Page 2

Mr. Reeves on the Sale of Confiscated Lands.

He Accuses the Government of Dissipating Half-a-M illion Sterling-

SPECIAL TELEGRAM TO THE BTA R

WELLINGTON

This day.

Mr Reeves, in moving for 9- return shewing in detail the lands disposed of v iinder the New Zealand Settlements Act, and the regulations issued thereunder, showing in each case the date and terms of the disposal, the names of purchasers, consideration given, extent and locality of the land disposed of, and date of authority or regulations under which the disposal was made, also shewing the public reserves made of such lands, and the objects for which such reserves were made, asked how much, of the three-million loan had been returned to the colony from the sale of the confiscated lands. No information was ever given as to the mode in which those lands were disposed of. He would show bj one notable case that large estates were disposed of absolutely contrary to the law as laid down by the Government. One impression the public always understood was that these lands should be set apart for settlement. The country kuew very little of the method of the disposal of these loans. .To one case he he desired to direct special attention, more especially when the Government were pressing great changes which would give them larger powers than they before possessed. There was a large swamp in the centre of the Waikato district— a tract of most valuable country, about 80,000 acres. Not very long ago that land was disposed of to a company of capitalists, in concraventioa- of the law which requires that all lands should bs submitted at an upset price of five shillings \yer acre. (Hear, hear.) It was disposed of to the company for the virtual sum of 2s. 6d. per acre—disposed of absolutely by private treaty under a private arrangement with the Government. The purchasers were Mr. Thomas Russell and Company. Who the company were he did not know, except the names of two gentlemen associated with Mr. Russell, who were largely connected with institutions, and closely connected with the financial business ot the colony. The manner in which this estate was disposed of, was deserving of careful consideration on the part of the House. This land had bten held by the Government from the earliest date of confiscation, eight or ten years ago. During that time the House was repeatedly informed by the Government that peace had been secured at an enormous cost to the colony ; that a system of public works had been instituted upon land by which ifc would be settled, and a railway would run through the estate, or in close proximity to it. Why could not the Government have held the land a little longer until the railway was made, when its value would have been enormously added to ? Why not have improved the estate itself, ana rendered it fit for settlement ? Nothing could have been easier. Some few years ago when the Government came into office itwas stated that a demilitarised force was to be employed in making roads and other public works. In this case why were not the Constabulary employed in opening up this valuable tract of land instead of the Government having to give capitalists £10,000 as a return from their miserable purchase money to make roads, and to virtually drain the swamp. If funds had not been forthcorniog money could have been taken from the roads north of Auckland loan. Why have they made these gentlemen a virtual gift of half-a million of money ? He failed to see any reason for dissipating the public estate in that way. He contrasted the mode of dealing with it, and if it had been dealt with by the Provincial Government, such a transaction would have been impossible with a Provincial Government which administered lands in strict accordance with the law (Oh !) which did not drive bargains with capitalists in bank parlours (Oh !) ; where every transaction was fair and open, and every man got justice and fair play (No !) In a Provincial Council it would not have happened as it did in the Legislative Couucil last session, when the matter was referred to that body it had not been discussed. He eaid advisedly that had such a charge been brought against the Provincial Government in the Provincial Council from which he came he would have had a loDg and stormy debate. The j?ress would have taken the matter up, and if no better defence were offered than that made in the Legislative Council last session the Government would have been charged with being guilty of a gigantic job, or a wanton waste of the public estate, and been immediaiely ejected from, office. In the Council last year when the question was brought forward, the Premier made the admission that the Government had acted contrary to law, but in describing two most important parts of the transaction he was inaudible. The Provincial Council w«uld not bo have dealt with the question. How many more transactions of a similar kind there might be on record it was impossible to say. He had heard there were larger transactions. The returns he asked for would make a fitting conclusion of a system which had been in force many years of administering these lands, and of which there wa3 no satisfactory record. (Opposition cheers.)

Sir Donald McLean said the Government would have the returns prepared. There was not the slightest doubt that the original expectations from confiscated lands had not been realised. None of the three million loan had been returned to the Colonial Treasury as expected when confiscation was commenced. With reference to the particular transaction, under notice, be would at once explain how it arose. The transaction was good, sound public policy. An applicati on was made by Mr Russell, on behalf of

company, to purchase a tract of swamp country, between Waikato and Taupo He applied at a lower price than the Government would agree to. He (Sir Donald McLean) insisted on the upset price of five shillings per acre. Other lands in the district were open at the same price, but not taken up. This particular land required a large expenditure to make it available. Mr Russell and Co. agreeing to make roads to it was one of the reasons which induced the Government to agree to the sale. That was the way of the transaction, which was approved by the settlers in the neighbourhood who had been much benefited by the Company's purchase. With reference to Mr Reeve's observation that it had been in contemplating to make a railway to that particular locality, he said if any railway was to be made it must be by the Company themselves. The Government advised with the Inspector of surveys as to the cost of making roads through this swamp. On his recommendation they insisted on the Company making roads for wheeled carriages which has since been converted by the latter intoatramway,thusenhancingthe value of the adjacent property. It was certain the Government could not have got better terms than those obtained from Mr Russell. The returns that would be presented would show that the administration of the confiscated lands under his management had been as satisfactory as they could be considering the difficulty to be encountered.

In answer to Sir George Grey's query, If the transaction was in conformity with'the law? Sir Donald McLean said the transaction, was as yet incomplete, requiring a proclamation which could not be issued until certain native difficulties were overcome. Sir George Grey complained that equal jußtice had not been done to all the Queen's subjects.

The motion was then agreed to.