THE LAND BILL.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1575, 19 October 1912, Page 5

THE LAND BILL.

DEBATE CONCLUDED,

SECOND READING CARRIED,

Tho Houso met at 2,30 p.m. t i °" 1,10 ■ Wconl ' muling of tho it , IVi,s rosumt'd at 3 p.m. i ' • SVKES (.Mnstcrton) said ho nns gralilieu to nolo (hat tho very important Bill under review had been discujieii b.v members, vitln one or two notd Mo exceptions, from a non-partisan point Ot viev. Ho recognised it was not a comprehensivo Dill, but ho recognised nlso that this was because tho Government had had a limited time in which Jo prepare their proposals for submission to 1 arliiiment. Tho lreehoiders in tho J oiise were satisfied, however, (hat the liecnokl was to bo granted to leasehold tenants. lie believed the freehold was (lie only possible tenure for successful settlement, and the only tenure to encourage the growth of a prosperous, conpopulation. Ho approved oi tlio Bill. Mr T BUXTON (Tenvuka) said he believed that even tho largo land-owners, as well as thoso who had no land, were agreed that tho largo estates must be subdivided. How this was to bo accompushed equitably was another matter, no liacl never been one of thoso who thought it w-as a cnnio for a man to hold his own ireeliold, but he maintained that the Question of lonuro was no longer sucli a burning question as it once was. He could not conceive any reasons whv men on easc-in-porpetuit.v holdings should tilink of acquiring the freehold. Somo leasc-in-perpetuity tenants now would not even accept the freehold at the original valuo, recognising, as they did, that tho prico of money was rising all the time. Ho suggested that tho Minister should, (luring the recess, have a conference with representatives of land boards about tho land legislation of. tho Dominion, which had becomo so complicated that boards did not know what their powers really were. i u'v (Waimarino) said lie believed in tho freehold tenure, and in so far as the Bill made the freehold tenure more easy of attainment, lie approved of it. He agreed with wlmt was in tlie Bui, but there was very little in it. All classes of leaseholders" were told at election time that they would be given the freehold, but most of them had been deluded. The Government owed it to their followers, if to no one else, to bring down acoinprohensive land policy instead of evading the main issues. This "? s ° f a P'eco with tho shuffling policy ot tho Government as it had been revealed since they took office. They liad even avoided giving a direct answer to deputations. Tho Bill was a temporising measure, and it fell very far sliort of what tho Government had promised to the doctors.

At 4.40 p.m. it appeared that the debate might break down, but when tho Prime Minister roso to reply Mr. Hnnaii claimed his right to speak. Mr. J. A. HANAN (Invcrcargill) said that ho would vote against the Bill. He denied that there had been a freehold mandate. By a .system of misrepresentation, small farmers had been led to believe that the radicals of this country would deprive them of their small freeholds. Jtr ,\ ''''""J' ar<! not such fools as you think. Mr. Hanon said that tho Bill was a retrograde measure in many respects. Mr. J. ROBERTSON (Olaki) said that tins Bill meant tho starting of a policy that was an almost entire reversal of tlio policy of the last twenty years. Tho demand for tho freehold,' he contended, was not based on a sentiment, but upon an instinctivo desire to get something for nothing. Mf- In (Marsden) approved ot the Bill as a measure containing many good proposals. He declared himself conndent that the Government would tacklo tho land question in a practical, straightforward, honest way. Ho believed that tho people would declare in favour of tho present Government at the next election. . Mr. n. .T. .H; OREY (Tarnnnki) said that lio had always been a freeholder, but had never been against a man taking -up a leasehold as a stepping-stono to the freehold. He would support any scheme brought forward for tho cuttingup of some of the best lands in order to let people get out of the towns and on to tho land. ' Mr. G. WITTY (Riccarton) said that the member who had last spoken was only in favour of closer settlement in tho cemetery. Tho Bill was a Conservative measure. Mr. C. K. WILSON (Taumarunui) said it jvns not fair to expect the Prime Minister, after thirteen weeks' in office, to produco a perfcct Land Bill. Jtr. Mnssey: It is perfect. Mr. Wilson: It is perfect so far as it goes, but it does not go far enough. He went on to explain that he believed other proposals would bo introduced next session which would put tho land laws of our oountry on a better basis. Tliei trouble in our country was that wo were educating the people into the towns. That ho wanted to see in the Bill was 6ome provision by which landless men in tho country and in tho towns should have an opportunity to get land. Mr. Russell: That s not in the Bill.

Mr. Wilson: But it will bo in tho Bill. Ho said he had every eonfidenco in tho Prime Minister, for ho knew Mr. Massey was whole-hearted in his desiro to put people on the land.

Mr. J. PAYNE (Grey Lynn) spoko of Unearned increment, and said that the vastly increased price of land to-day in New Zealand was due not to the farmer but to tho community. Mr. G. LAURENSON (Lyttclton) deprecated tho proposal to take tho land from tho Maori and to cut it up for settlement by the white man.

Mr. H. ATMORE (Nelson) said that the freehold tenure with limited area was tho l»st tenure for the country. The best tenure was that which encouraged a man to work his land to tho best advantage, and that tenure was the freehold.

The debate was carried on by Mr. H. G. Ell (Chrietchurch South), Mr. V. H. Reed (Bay of Islands), Mr. J. 11. Bradney (Auckland West), and Mr. J. Craigio (Timnru). •

The lion. W. P. MASSEY (Prime .Minister) roso to reply at 1 a.m. He acknowledged the compliment members had paid him by having given so much attention to his Bill, and he was pleased to 6ay that tho speeches, with tho exception of cno or two that wcro vulgarly abusive, had been fair. If members were opposed to the Bill, tho opposition took its rise in ignorance, and it was criminal ignorance. He replied to tho critics who hod said that the Bill lmd l>eon stolen from tho late Government. Many of the rlnuscs had never previously boen in any Government Bill. Ho protested rigorously against (ho statement that his Bill was not a poor man's Bill. Tho second reading was carried by 43 votes to 17. Following is tho division list:— Ayes (43): Allen, Anderson, Atmore, Bell, R. F. Bollard, Bradney, Buohanan, Buddo, Buick, Coatos, Escott, Fisher, Fraser, Guthrie, Harris, Herd man, Hcrrios, Hine, Hunter, Lang, Lee, Macdonald, M'Kenzio, Malcolm, Massey, E. Newman, Nosworthy, Okey, Pearce, Pomare, Reed, R. If. Rhodes, F. W. Rhodes, Seott, T. H. Smith. R. W. Smith, Stathani, Sykes, G. M. Thomson, J. C. Thomson, Wilford, Wilkinson, Wilson. Noes (17): Carroll, Craigie, Dnvoy, Forbes, liindmnrsh, Isitt, Laurenson, M'Cnlluni, Dr. A. K. Newman, Payne, Rangihiroa, Robertson, Russell, Seddou, Sidey, Veitch, Witty. Pairs. Ayes: Clnrk, J. Bollard, Dickie, Mnnder, Ward. Noes: Brown, Colvin, Parata, nanon, Ell. Tho House rose at 1.50 a.m.