THE LAND BILL.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1574, 18 October 1912, Page 6

THE LAND BILL.

SECOND READING DEBATE. ATTACK AND DEFENCE. . The debate on the second reading of the Land Bill was resumed at 3.5 p.m. The Hon. A. T. NGATA (Eastern Maori) said he proposed to address himself to those clauses'of the Bill relating to Native land. Tlio proposal was by no means new. The idea of inviting Maori land-owners to offer their lands for administration and settlement by the Crown Land Board was first mooted in 1885, Ly ">Mr. Price, then Minister for Lands, and again by Mr. John Ballance. It was really a very old and by 110 means a revolutionary proposal, as the Prime Minister had represented it to be. He accused the Prime Minister of being hasty in introducing into the Land Bill liis proposals affecting Native land. He had suggested to thfl House that the Natives had grown, to distrust the late Government, and that now all distrust; would bo removed.' This was by no means true. He read a letter .from three influential chiefs asking the Prime Minister not to proceed with- those proposals in his Bill. • If ' .the Maoris distrusted the Maori Land Boards row, they distrusted the Crown Lands Boards a great deal more. The Prime Minister was rash, in introducing the proposal as new, and lie was over sanguino as to its success. He should defer, it until next year, when he might know what was the opinion of the Maoris upon it. The Natives were willing, to sell their surplus lands, but to sell them by auction, and not by, the method suggested in the Bill. Tlio proposal should have been brought down in a 'Native Land Bill referrablc to tlio Native Affairs Committee. The Maori and "the Liberals." The Hon. Dr. POMAKE said he'vdid not agree with tlio previous speaker in all that he had said, but he did agree with him in some things. The Liberal Government, it was true, had had this proposal before them for a good many years without giving. to it. But they had done n great many other things in connection with Maori lands:. TJp till 1911 there were 3,192.399 acres of Maori lands purchased by the Government, and the prico was Gs. td. per acre, and in tile same time 1,646,942 acres of pakeha land had been bought at an average price of ■£•! lis. Bd. per acre. This meant that one acrc of pakeha land was worth 1-1} acres of Maori land. An lion, member: Wns not the oxtra price for improvements? Dr. Pomaro: Even allowing *.£'l per acre for improvements, then tho prico paid for pakeha land was still double that/ paid for Maori land. Maoris, ho continued, had been robbed in a wholesale manner by the paternal Liberal Government in the purchase of lands by the Government below their real values. The Maori had been put into a peculiar position. ne was handicapped in that the markets were not. open to him; he could sell only to the Government, and at tho Government's own valuation. The Maori had to take what was offered, or he would get nothing at all. A Government cheque book was waved in the face of the poor, improvident Maori, his worst passions were appealed to and lie parted with his land to gft money. Ho could sell to nobody else. Now, however, the land of tho Maori would be open to be purchased by anybody who wanted it, and the prico realised, would be at least a fairer "one. Ho had much pleasuro in supporting tho Bill. Dr. TE HANGIHIHOA (Northern 'Maori) supported the statement made by Mr. Ngata ithnf. influential, well-informed Maoris did not want thi proposals in

the Bill to be proceeded with. ne hoped the Prune Minister would drop this part of iis Bill in the meantime. 'Mr. Massey: The Kill is going through. Mr. C. K. Wilson: 'J'luit's Tniliim. On the L.I.P. Tenure. The lion. J). Jil'UDO (ICniapoi) said the I3ill dealt only with .some 3,(11)0,000 acres of the residue of the Crown lands, ami 5011,01K1 aeres of Xntive lands, about which there had already been a great deal of litigation, and the titles to which would be exceedingly difficult to settle, lie would, however, support readiiy enougli certain of the provisions of the Jiill, especially those relating to .subdivision. Jint he. was confident that before this Parliament had expired it would be apparent that the freehold proposal!, were of very trilling import. Ka one could .say that the l.i.p. tenure had been a very satisfactory one in the settlement of land, and most of the settlers had made a success of their working of tho lands. Not only had they done this, but. many of them lnid made good sales of their leases, lie did not object to this; he thought a Crown tenant had just as much right to [ the increased value of his la:ad as tho owner of the freehold had. He could not understand why the Prime. Minister had not given tho J.i.p. tenants an opportunity to obtain the freehold. Probably none of the tenants would take advantage of tho concession, but the effect might lie apparent in a year or two. He admitted that lie could, not see why a man with a fixed mortgage for !)!)!) years at I! pe-. cent, would purclmt-e the freehold for tho problematical advantage of going into the open market, and borrowing for fi.V per cent. 011 a short mortgage. J.te could see no'reason why the Minister should not offer tho freehold to tho l.i.p. tenants. -Mr. Massey: They'll get it. Mr. Umldo said that if the Minister would adopt tho proposal he would support it. Mr. Massev Will you put it through the Council? Mr. Buddo said he could not do that. He contradicted the Prime Minister's statement that the best of our population was being driven to Australia in search of land. Will Encourage Settlement.* Mr. .1. HARRIS (Waitcniafa) support, ed the Hill. He approved of the proposal to give the Maoris facilities to sell their land on more Advantageous terms, and tho proposals to make more easily possible the subdivision of large holdings. Only if this were done could the land hunger be satisfied, and our population be retained. Mr. A. J'j. GLOVEIt (Auckland Central) spoke mostly of strawberry growing and the need for allowing the people in the country to get fruit at cheaper freights. Mr. I''. Jl. SMITH (Waitftki) said he hoped much good from the Bill. It would bring about a system of small freeholds, which had made France and some other European countries wealthy and prosperous. l'or the first time for manv years tile Minister for Lands was a practical farmer, and the settlers on the land had more confidence, in him. lie contended that the l.i.p. tenure had been a failure. Something must bo done to stop tho reaggregation of land which had been going on, in. spite of the Liberal Government's _ legislation. . Now the Liberal Party, in Opposition, wero commencing to find fault with their own. administration. . . ■ . Disappomtod. .. Mr. G. W. FORBES (Hurunui) said lie was very much disappointed. Mr. Massey: I should think so! Mr. Forbes ?aid he did not 'quarrel with the Minister because the Bill was a freehold measure. He was not a freeholder he recognised there was a Government ill office now. It was supposed to bo a settlement Bill, but he admitted that he could find nothing iu it which Would accelerate the rate at which lands were 'being settled to any considerable extent. What was most needed at present was a measure to consolidate all our land legislation. His chief complaint against the system of settlement proposed in the Bill was that it depended on the will of tho large landowner. They would olTer to tho Government only such land as tliev could not get rid of otherwise. Ho also did not approve of the method of disposing of land by auction, because it would'force up the price for the benefit of the largo landowner. A Taranaki Member. Mr G V. PEARCE (Patea) said that as a freeholder he was very pleased to bo * able to support tho Bill. Three years ago a \iian who supported the freehold in the House was howled down, but they had just listened to a leaseholder who had ■not said a word, in support of the leasehold. Mr. Forbes: Hadn't time. (Laughter.) Mr. Poarce said that it was the dntv of the Government to do all that it could ' to people the country districts, and one great stepping-stono towards tills ideal was the freehold. The settlement carried out l>y the Maori land boards was the worst that had ever been carried out in this country. Tho lands had been disposed of without-means of access, and settlers had been left in the mud. Tho danger of re-aggrecntion mentioned by Mr. Sidey was a bogy. As a fact, in the Tarauaki district, the danger was all the other way—tho holdings wero too small. Mr. Poarce said that he did not altogether approve of the conditions on which the Government proposed to part with Crown liyids. The proposal to charge the tenant tho original value pins one iper cent, per annum - with interest and compound interest would make the price too high in the caso of many tenants, and it would go higher year by year so that in a few-years tho provision would become unworkable. In Committee he would move an amendment, by way of an addition, giving the tenant the" option of purchase at a price equal to the value of the land at the time of purchase, less the lessee's interest in the unexpired term of his lease. Mr. Russell Critical. Mr. G. W. RUSSELL (Avon) said that much of the Bill had originated with the party to which ho belonged. (Laughter.) Mr. Massey: That is not so. Mr. Russell said that Sir Joseph Ward's Land Bill of 1310 covered many clauses of the present Bill. Mr. Massey: It doe* not. Mr. Russell said that main of . the proposals in this Bill regarding small grazing rnns were taken from the Bill of 1910. Mr. Massey: They were not. Mr. Rnssell said that the town-planning proposals wero also taken from the Bill of 1910. (Laughter.) The member for Avon went on to state that the longer tho gentlemen opposite occupied the Treasury benches the plainer it became that they were a collection of mediocrities, who had to steal a of their predecessors. There was nothing new in the town-planning proposals contained in the Bill.

Mr. Massey: What about the penalty? Mr. Kusseil: That'was taken from my Local Government Bill. He added that the penalty was taken from the Ward Bill of 1(110.

Mr. Massey: Which you dropped! Mr. T'usspil said that Mr. Massey was afraid to bring down liis policy proposals in regard to giving tenants of leasc-in-perpetuity settlement lands the option of purciiase. The Prime Minister had said that the country made a loss,on settlement lands. As a fact the countr,v_tliis vear had made a profit of .£,l-1,527 on Mieso lands. Mr. Ngata had that afternoon pulverised the Prime Minister's Native land proposals. Mr. Massey: Gave, himself away! Mr. Rnssefl went on to contend that the Bill contained no really useful or helpful proposals. He .'believed in the leasehold as a means of giving men a better start than they would, otherwise have. It seemed that the leasehold policy was now to lio abandoned, and that the Liberal partv must seek to gain its end by taxation of land values. He was not a single-taxer, but there was undoubtedly a great deal of unearned increment in this country. The Primo Minister had chaffed (lie Liberal party with being a composite party containing both leaseholders and freeholders, but what about iris own Cabinet? The Minister for Customs had said in the ITouse: ''I have snid on the public platform, and T say again, that, as a leaseholder, I would not accept a position in a freehold Cabinet." Who was to rule the policy of the Cabinet, freehold Jlr. Masse.? or leasehold Jfr. Fisher? Mr. Massey: I don't think von' should attack Jfr. Fisher in his absence. jfr. Kussell: Does the lion, gentleman expect mo lo wait and make my jpeech when Mr. Fi-hor comes back? Mr. Mas.'ey: Most men would. Mr. Tlussell said thai the lion, gentleman setting some of hi.* o«n imp). He Had taken into liii Cabinet a strong.

leaseholder—a stronger leaseholder than an.v member of tho Mackenzie Cabinet. ■Mr. Jlassey: You would take a seat in my Cabinot.

Air. RussellNo ilonbt that is the lion, gentleman's expefieneo oi' his colleague, iiinl 1 will leave him to settle the'matter with his colleague after tho moulting remark he has made.

-Mr. Jlassey said that his remark had been applied to Air. .Russell. | Mr. SI'EAKER IoM ,\lr. Russell to withdraw tho term "insulting," and ho did to, substituting "incorrect." Russell described* as "a ghastly fraud" .Mr. Jlassey's proposal to give I.i.p. tenants the right to acquire tho freehold. The country had declared in favour of the freehold. Nothing would .he pined by attempting to block the freehold proposals in this Jiill. He wanted to fiie Couservjtive policy in action.Its results would bo so bad that in twelve mouths the people of the country would say, "l"ut the old Liberal party back again.'' Provision for the Landless. Me. G. J. ANDERSON (Mataura) criticised Jlr. Russell's remark about the pretext Ministers. If they were mediocrities what were the members of the late Ministry ? A member: Stop-gaps! Mr. Anderson said that there was no comparison between the two. He went cn to-remark that the Government proposals m reference lo converting lcase-in-per-peluity settlement lands into freehold would be submitted to the House next session. This Bill proposed to do more for tho landless man than any of the Bills that had preceded it. The large landowner's day was done in this country and everyone .know it. The Bill from "lid lo end would prevent aggregation. It aimed at putting settlers on the land, and the ordinary spirit of a. New Zealand settler led him to retain his holding. Much land had aggregated under the laws of the previous Government. The present Bill had a few defects, but was a very good one. Concluding, Mr. Anderson stressed the importance of providing for roading in every case when land was being opened for settlement. Failing this, settlement could not turn out satisfactorily. Hr. L. M. ISITT (Christchurcli North) spoke ironically of tho Bill as "this piece do resistance, this radical reform measure." Ho described tile good intentions of the Government as "absolute cant." and said the oiler of the freehold was wholesale bribery. A Bill for the Workers. Mr. E; NEWMAN (Rangitikei) declared that Jlr. Isitt had plainly, failed to comprehend tho Bill. In point of fact it was a measure for workers and small farmers. Mr. Payne :W hero do the workers como in? Mr. Newman: Tho workers come in by getting a chance ot' going on the land. I hat is going to bo tho solution of tho Labour question. A Labour member: How aro they to get it? Jlr. Newman: You can't give them the land. Mr. Payne: Oh, yes, you can. Mr, Newman: There is only one member of the House who would do that sort of thing. Mr. Payne: I would do so. Mr. Newman said they-proposed to take land from one man and give.it' to another. Generally lie defended the Bill, and supported it strongly. Jlr. J. VIGOR BROWN (Napier) quoted facts and figures with' intent to show that much yet remained to bo done in the way of breaking up large estates for closer settlement. He said that the Land Bill would not do much to break up big estates. A New Member. Mr. C. A. WILKINSON (Eltliam) was applauded as he rose to make his first speceh in the House 011 an important debate, ne said that the time was approaching when- more drastic methods would have to be adopted in cutting up largo estates. Ho' was tllero as a strong supporter of the freehold, both for town and country, but he was quite willing to back up tho principle of having amplo areas of endowment lands. Tho worker should be encouraged to become a landowner himself. Every facility should be given to workers in obtaining their own homes. Ho congratulated tho Primo Minister and the . Government 011 the introduction- of this Bill and 011 their long; fight for the freehold. Mr. W. A. VEITCIt (Wan ganui) complimented Mr. Wilkinson upon his speech. He recognised the Bill as an innovjftion in the land policy of the Dominion that would have very serious consequences indeed. Jt had been said that it was not worth while discussing the question of leasehold versus freehold, but if he stood alone iii the House he was going to stand up for the principle of leasehold. Mr. R. JI'CALLUJI (Wairau) said there were somo minor details in the Uiil to which 110 did not object, but tnat he was opposed to it as a whole, and objected to dealing with land laws in "this•piecemeal fashion."

Jlr. A. 11. lIINDJIARSII (Wellington South) said that the land question was dealt with in this Bill rather as a political than as an economic question. The Government hoped to strengthen itself by increasing the number of freeholders. The • Prime Minister was utterly incompetent to deal with this, question. Nothing worse had been attempted in the mos]t riotous hey-dey of Liberalism than v?as attempted in this Bill. Mr. G. R. Sykes moved the adjournment of tho debate, and the House rose at 1.20 a.m.