THE HOUSE.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1583, 29 October 1912, Page 6

THE HOUSE.

"SELECT COMMITTEES, ■ "The Houso of Representatives sat at 7.30 , p.m. yesterday. '<'.: Mr. .A. S. MALCOLM (Clutha) gave notice to ask the Government whether ehps would be taken in order to obviate '.ne present confusion, to reduce the number on Select Committees from ten members to four. ; ■ . FISHERIES BILL. - ': . : The Hon. IV M. B; FISHER (Minister . for Manne) gave notico that he would in- •;, froduco tho Fisheries Bill. '■'-.:.:•■ -SHOPS AND OFFICES. '■' ..' The Shops and-Offices Amendment Bill ■ " (the Hon: W. IVvMassev) was rend a first time, read "a secorid.time pro forma, and :.'■■ referred to tho Labour. Bills Committee. IRON INDUSTRY. 1 '" On the motion of Mr. A. S. Malcolm (Clutha), seven days' extension of time in which to .report was granted to the ,'..- -■.'Committee set up to report upon the ■ petition recently presented to the Houso '.'■• • from M, W. Haybittle ;and five others. ; '■]'..■ i ■ the land;bill. ; : .:;:,.: ;;"'■ ' : THIRD READING DEBATE. ■' -i ■ Tho Hon. W. F. MASSET (Minister for ; ■ 'Lands) moved the, third reading of the. ' LandiLaws Amendment Bill. " . ■ ■'■■ Mr. li. M./ISITT, (Christchurch. North) '.- was tho first to speak to tho.motion. "I ■';>:'rise to enter a last protest'against this ■*■ "wretched, travesty, of. , land reform,"- he said,-,' and he declared that it '■■ ■'would, 'work tho undoing £ of . the "■-. • men ; responeible for it. It would, stand, i' v ;to their shame, a monument to.their in•■'■•'note.Toryism, to thoir unworthy-deter-.-::-'l mjnation. to purchase votes by/any and H-ievery means. (Cries of protest:) \ ■■''• '■' -Mr. Isitt: Where is the improper lani:v:'?jfuago there/ sir?. That is the frozen fc ■ eolid truth,. - - •; ~'!r.■'• ■•Mlr.'.'Massey:', It is not.. ; : :;Mrj'vlsi,tt;-.IJ/is- my 'opinion .and eveTy ■.'■■-man.hasla right to his opinion. Ho re- ; ''gretted 'the practical abolition of the leaso- '■■ nold, and-he defied any member of the :. .Minisiiy-.to.adduce,.a,.single argument to ;. : '. justify-.the granting of the freehold of ;-• lands now' held by the Crown. .' The .MSmbet-'for lAvon.''' / /V;Mr.G.'\V. RUSSELL (Avon) said ho ■ -would endeavour in his remarks to keep ~-■ as. close as possible to the Bill itself. ' '.■ ;:ilr. G.' K. .Wilson: Your mate got a \- J long,way from it. (Laughter.) ;.;. ; ' ■■ Mr.. Russell said the Bill, was a-very ,:.... different measure, from that.at first in- ,: troduced:' He had-never known a Gov- ■• ;i ernment, make such, liberal use of the -.Supplementary Order Papers to bring . . down important policy amendments. '. :-*.'■ Mr. Buchanan: What about your own '■' Local- Government Bill?

ijMr. Russell maintained. that his Bill ■was in fruth. a goo'd Bill, and had been so described in the Budget Speech. /Mr. Buchanan: It's not your Bill at all. - • i.t ■..Mγ,- Russell said the Bill had not'been ■ seriously altered by the Local Bodies Conference., Ho accused the Government of ..tinkering with land legislation. He asked that the Government should provide ...lands' for settlement.'in the' South Iswhich for the last fifteen years had ■ be en "tho milch cow, drained to develop • '.the North Island. Now the North' Island ■; ivas. drawing population from .the South Island owing to the opening up of large areas of land in the North Island for settlement. He 'had no regrets about the tenants under the 999 years' lease bein» ■ granted the freehold. Ho asked, how- ,. ever; what steps the Government pro- . posed;.to take to lend State moneys to the tenants, who have been granted tho option of the freehold, to bny their land. He •did not suggest that the Government ought "to'.lend the money; rather, he thought, : Available funds should be utilised to promote new settlement. - Ho regarded the •Native land proposals as' "a huge experiment," which would not work out well. The- -whole Bill wasa:disappointment,.nnd ,it would not materially, promote settlement upon the -land."* <'. : .? ■ An,. Amendment Thrown Out.' : : ■'.'■:■ Mr. T. K/SIDEY. (Dunedin South). 'pointed out that,,although the Bill did . mot directly give lease in: perpetuity ten- . ants of settlement lands the' right to ac- , quire the freehold it did .so indirectly, 'because the3e tenants , ' wire entitled k> , ; exchange their present.tennre.for renew- •■' able lease, and tenants- of'.'settlement .lands■'under the latter tenure had the right to purchase their holdings; /'. Mr. Massey interjected that tenants • who did' what Mr. Sidey had suggested . .would place themselves in'■ a worse iposition than they were in now. Mr. Sidey mentioned lhat tin. amendment which he had moved in committee, making the limitation ■ provisions of the Act apply to land purchased under agree-' ~ tnent with a private owner, had been r thrown out. He claimed that, as the . Act stood, one purchaser of an estate cut up in this way could bny up-all thfi other purchasers. Mr. Sidey said that . lie intended to again divide the House on this proposal, as not many members ; had been present when he brought it up '. in Committee. Disregarding a remark by . the Prime Minister of; "Don't waste time," Mr. Sidey moved:— That the Bill be re-committed for tho purpose of inserting the following new clause:—lßa: Part 13 of the \ Land Act, 1908 (dealing with limitation of area) shall extend and apply to all land disposed of in fee simple . under tho preceding provisions of .;■ this part of this Act. The amendment was negatived, on a division, by 35 votes to 20. ■ The following is the- division list:— For the Amendment (20).—Brown, Cartoll, Colvin, Craigie, Davey, EH, Forbes, Glover, Hanan, Isitt, M'Callum, Macdonald, M'Kenzie, Ngata, Russell, Sidey, B. W. Smith, J. C. Thomson, Wilford, .Witty. Against the Amendment (35).—Allen, ' Anyerson, J. Bollard, R. F. Bollard, Bradney, Buchanan, Buiek, Coates, DickBon, Escott, Fisher, Fraser, Guthrie, Harris, Horries, Hine, < Hunter, Lang, Malcolm, Mnnder, Massey, Myers, Nosworthy, Okey, Pomaro, Reed, R. H. Rhodes, T. W. Rhodes, Scott, Statham, ' Sykes, G. M. Thomson, Wilkinson, Wilson, Younj. : Pairs. Fot the Amendment.-jHindmarsh, Robertson. I ■ •*> Against th« Amendment.—F, H. Smith, • Campbell. <• Approval with Reservations. --. Mr. W. D. S. MACDONALD (Bay of Plenty) said that tho only proposal in ' the Bill that would benefit the small roan was the proposal to give him' 25 ' acres of gam land. Small grazing Tun holders,.to his mind, had not been as generously treated as thoy ehould liavo been. No provisrixnV. seemed to nave been

madfl for the men who had. gone fnr back into the roughest country. Settlers of this olass should 'liavo the right of a 6econd term without subdivision of their lands. In any case runs of an area under 3000 acres ehould have tho riglit of a second term without subdivision. Some ? razing aim tenants were apprehensive hat they would not get a fair valuation for their improvements, and he asked tho Prirao Minister to look' carefully into the position.

.Mr. G. LAURBNSON (Lyttelton) said tho Bill did not touch the real question of laud settlement, and no measure could do so which did not operate, by taxing the land. Ho disapproved strongly of tho opening of Native lands to tho privato speculator. It was all very well to talk ot cutting up Native lands, but first of all the attention of Parliament ought to be turned to tho largo pakcha estates which' disfigured the country, lie ven- . tured . to suggest that if tho Bill were submitted to a referendum in tho country it would get short shrift. llr. G. W. FORBES (Hurunui) 'said tho Primo Minister had made a blunder in bringing down half a Bill. He should have brought down a comprehensive mensure, instead of causing even more confusion than at present existed in tho land laws of the country.

Mr. C. A. WILKINSON (Egmont) commended tho extension of tho freehold under tho Bill. Hβ disagreed absolutely

with Mr. Laurenson's contention that an additional land tax would not impose a burden on tho .people. Mr. Laurenson had asked what would become of futuro generations when all the land had been parted with. Would there bo any moro land under the leasehold than under the freehold system? He invited Mr. Isitt to visit Taranaki and persuade the small farmers of that province that he was their friend. The fact that Taranaki returned four members to support a freehold Government was rather a complete answer to thoso who said that the small farmer did not really favour tho freehold. Ho ventured to say that. no leasehold candidate would be returned to represent a Taranaki electorate. 'Depressed and Sad." Mr. R. M'CALLTJM (Wairau) said that ft number of people had been returned to this House by means of a bribe. That night the price was being paid. No sane man would give a lease with a purchasing clause, because tho tenant would take advantage of his option if land went up, and would refrain from doing so in the contrary event. Under this Bill tho position was ten times worse. It was a de. gradation of public life that men should come into this House and that such a promise should have to-be carried out. A . Government member: A lot of twaddle!

Mr. M'Callum said that he was depressed and sad that public men should conio down, to this. In one of his references to the Bill ho spoke of it as "squalid legislation," and he accused the Prime Minister of duplicity in dealing with settlement lands. Later, he spoke of Mr. ■ilassey as "an honest freeholder." ■ Mr. J. HANAN (Invercargill) said that this Bill would lamentably fail as a measure to promote closer settlement. In Bomo respects it was retrogressive and in others"circumjjressive." 'Ihe rejection of. Mr. Sidey's limitation clause by the Prime Minister and his following showed that they werb opposed to limitation, of area. If the country had not been prosperous, and if land values had not risen, there would not have been a cry by tenants for the freehold. These people were not content to get what tihey .had themselves put into the land: they wanted to get -what the State had put in as well, rh'oy wanted to profit at.the expense of tho public. a The Bill Welcomed./

Mr. J. A. YOUNG (Waikato). complimented the Prime Minister on bringing down a Bill w.hich had been looked for by tho people of the country. As a freeholder, he regretted Bill did not go further. The freehold had been proved sound in theory,. fact and experience. It was rcgrottablo that a great deal of opposition had been offered to the Bill I for purely party reasons. There wae nothing, in. the,,claim 'that this Bill was robbiTte'-tlib "people of l their- -birthright. He believed that it would bo a blessing to the people of this country. Mr. A. H. HIiNDMAKSH (Wellington South) said t'hat tho Bill, in dealing with the 33 years' lease, conserved the interest of the tenant, but not the interest of the State. He expressed a fear that the Prime Minister himself did not understand this Bill. Later he said the Bill was framed for the purpose of land fIg Mr. ga H? n ATMOKE (Nelson) said that, as a freeholder, ho could not > but approve of the freehold provisions of the Bill. The arguments adduced by tho members of the Opposition had utterly failed to convince 'him. He did not ajjprove, however, of the Government's failure' to provide for the breaking up of big estates, and the Government's yielding to the cry of the large land-owners to cut up the small residue of tho Maoris' laftd. • Mr. T. W. RHODES (Thames) approved of the Bill ns an attempt to deal with the land question in a thoroughly practical manner.

Mr. J. ROBERTSON (Otaki) did not believe, as its'advocates had said, that tho new proposals would make for an increase of the productivity of the soil. Also, there was not sufficient provision in tho Bill to prevent aggregation and tho growth of monopoly in land. Mr. G. WITTY (Riccarton) said the Government had in fact no land policy, in support of. which statement he insisted that the Bill had been built up with suggestions from the Opposition side. Tho Bill wa9 framed to stop settlement, instead of to promote eettlcment. The Government wanted to make serfs of the people, alnd (x> create an aristocracy in this country. The Prime Minister would not.dare to go.to Christchurch and expound his Bill to the people there. Mr. W. C. BUCHANAN (Wairarapa) said that it had been refreshing to hear the epeeches mado by members' on the other side. Hearing them, one would imagine that they had achieved . something notable in land legislation, during tho last 21 yeara. In 1900 they brought in a Land Bill and it got no further than tho first reading. stage. Two Bills introduced in the following year shared the same fate, and.subsequent Bills fared no better. The present Bill was consistently carrying on the policy which had been advocated by the Government party. The debate- was carried on by Messrs. H.' G. Ell (Christchurch South) and G, J. Anderson (Mataura). The Prime Minister ' rose to reply at 2.12 a.m., and tho House went to a division at 2.15 a.m. Tho Bill passed its third reading by 43 votes to 13.

Should the weatheT be favourable during this week, Palmerston North will bo tho contro of attraction to many thou- '■ sands of people from all parts of tho Dominion, for in that llourisliing inland town ig to bo held tho annual show of the Manawatru and West Coast Agricultural and Pastoral Association. The fact that the entries are far in excess of any previous year indicates that the land in Hμ Manawatu, Oroua, Bangitikei, and Horowhenuu. Counties is unsurpassed in either the North or South Island, for every class of fanning. Among the many visitors to the show will bo those, no doubt, who will be in search of land, and tho attention of those is drawn to tho advertisement of Messrs. Abraham and Williams, Ltd., of Palmerston North, on Pago 10 of this issue, in which this wellknown firm intimate that they have made arrangements to convoy intending buyers to inspect two of the finest estates that have over been subdivided in tho North Island, viz., Mrs. Walter Johnston's Kopane Estato and Riddiford'g well known Longburn Estate. Both these are to Iμ olfered by public auction in tho early part of next year. Plans and the fullest particulars may l,e had upon application to the firm at their office in Rangitikoi Street, Pnlmerston North, or at their stall on the show grounds.

While tho Iter.. E. C. Parmcnter, fifty six, vicar of Dserhurst (Gloucestershire), was standing in the road at Deerhurst talking to a parishioner who was seated in a trap, a young man riding a bicycle collided with tho vicar, who fell on the back of his head. He wns picked up unconscious and died about four hours later.

As bo many people retained chairs at the only table in [ho reading room at High Uolborn Library, London, for long periods' and went to t-leep, the ram in i tree directed that the chairs should bo removed Mid tho table converted into n slope at which readers are compelled to Ljtand.