THE COUNCIL.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1585, 31 October 1912, Page 8

THE COUNCIL.

LAND BILL DEBATED

HON. J. D. ORMOND SPEAKS OUT. "GROSSLY INACCURATE" STATEMENTS REPLIED, TO. The Council met! at 2.30 p.m.'' The IJ on. H. I) BELL reported, that the Land Bill had lxs:ii received from the Lands Committee, which had. attached certain amendments of a purely formal nature. The Bill was now being reprinted, and would shortly be circulated. In the : he proposed to tnko the fincoijd reading ■ debate. Tho Bill, explained 1 Jlr. -Beil,; did not represent; 'the whole ''policy :of - tho Reform party, but an instalment of'that policy— in certain respects, a ■ considerable instalment. The Minister then outlined, in "an explanatory .speech, the' main features of the Bill. Tho Hon. J. IJ. Oil MO.\* f) adversely criticised the, Bill, which ho declared made no definite provision for land settlement. He scouted tho possibility, suggested by the .Government, that the small grazing runs might Week closer settlement in the future, and that somo provision was thereby required for their resumption by tho Government under conditions eet out in the Bill. Thoso small runs constituted tho refuse lands of the areas •fet apart for settlement; they were of poor quality, and time would not alter that essential characteristic. He saw no prospect of a definite and satisfactory degree of land settlement under the provisions relating to the subdivision of lands by agreement with owners, or to the agreements with owners of Native lands.

The Position in Hawke's Bay. The speaker then referred to what b« termed "the grossly inaccurate and misleading" statements which had appeared in . a recent serieo of articles on Hawke's Bay that had been published in the "Evening Post," and regretted that the editor of that paper had nccepted theso statomonts for editorial comment. These'articles had most unfairly misrepresented the position of the Hawke's Bay land-holders; and as one of those he desired to state what the position was so far as he himsolf was concerned. "I want to say," said the Hon. J. D. Ormond, "that these statements are deliberately unfair." "Hear, near," said the Hon. H. D. Bell. The effect of these statements was that tliero were in Hawke's Bay 230 owners vim monopolised four million acres of land, much of which was of excellent quality. To begin with, the acreage of Hawkes Bav was not four million acres, but 2,700,000 acres, of which 700,000 is situate in tho mountain ranges, leaving tha acreage at two million. There was not one single estate in Hawko's Bay oi the extent of 20,000 acres—and the writer of these articles had said there were 230! There were only three whoso holdings aggregated over 10,000 acres, and ho was one of theso three. Ho had previously held 24,000 acres, but since had reduced his holding to 13,000, having subdivided 11,000 acres. The actual position in Hawke's Bay to-day was,' if the informa-

tion he had collated from authentic sources was correct, tlmt 43 people between them owned 118,000 acres. The Pioneers. \ The speaker dwelt upon the hardships and privations which he and other landowners in Hawke's Bay had to face in the pioneer days of the country's colonisation. In 1853 Wellington was the nearest and only port to which Hawke's Bay could, look to for supplies, which were landed at' various points along the coast . Two years later came the fall in the price of wool— to lid.—in London, by which many had been ruined. To what end ■ had ho and others struggled through these trying: times? To make some provision for those who oaine after him. He had 80 descendants, amongst whom would be divided his acres. Continuing, the speaker said that the real difficulty was tne diminishing area of land available for settlement. and ho advised tho Government to obtain reliable data from the various districts as to tlio land suitable for subdivision. Referring.tothe Native landowners, Mr. Ormond.'6aid that the Government should face the'question of coinpulsorily taking over Native land. "Is it right? interrupted tho Hon. H. D. Bell. • . "Is it right!" exclaimed the speaker, who' added that lie could not understand the objections of some people to the principle that there should bo one set of land laws for both the European and Maori landowner. Mr. Ormorid concluded by saying that the Government ivould be well advised to consider tho question of acquiring land by tho issue of debentures. . ,

Ownership and Occupation. The Hon. J. ANSTEY opposed tho Bill. He said that there had been some confusion of thought on the question of land ownership as distinguished from land occupation. The* first care of' the Government should not be'towards ownership,' but to tho question of establishing <i system of land occupation, which would ensure tho maximum productivity of the soil. There was no doubt about the success of the leasehold system which had boon established in the past, and that the leaseholders had prospered materially, and tho country had advanced • accordingly was due to the fact that these men had invested their money in the development of their holdings instead of sinking their capital iii the acquirement of the fee simple. What was urgently - wanted was greater security of tennre, particularly ' with regard to the back-country settler. But the Bill did not provide for that, nor did it oll'or'any inducement to the freeholder to improve his land. Tho provisions 1 concerning tho disposal'of tho proceeds from the sale of Crown lands were a simple matter of book-keeping, but that had nothing to do v;ith land settlement. . The Minister: Nothing to do with land settlement! Continuing, Mr. Anstcy complimented tho Government on tho provision made for the fair resumption of land held under tho small grazing-run title, when tho same was 'required for subdivision. - He was very see that the Bill had been altered since its first appearance, to provide that in the case of resumption by the Government the holder of a small grazing run should .be compensated for dispossession. Had this not been, attended to, resumption would simply hnvo amounted to confiscation. He siigested that pastoral licenses should bo converted into leases.

Other Speakers. The Hon. J. T. PA : KL argued that aggregation must follow the granting of the right of purchase to Crown tenants under the Bill, which, while remedying many errors, al6o removed many benefits, and .was not in the interests of land settleiinent. Ho proposed to move an amendment, when, the Bill was in its Committee stage, to Clause £3, substituting the word "require" for the' word "agree" with respect to the subdivision of pri-vately-owned lands, making the application of the clause compulsory, not optional. ' The Hon. C. H. MILLS (Marlborough) said that the Bill, while giving lease-in-perpetuity settlors tho right of purchase, did not in any way approach compulsion or confiscation, and so hardly merited tho vigorous condemnation by the two previous speakers. It. simply left it to the Hottler to please ,himself whether ho availed himself of the Government's oftei or not. 1 The Hon. H. F. WIGRAM (Canter-, bury) sxiid that one of .the principal points requiring attention whs the romoval of the speculative element in land ballots. It should bo the business of thq Government to deviso some means of [tocertain ing from the number of applications for land who intended to become bona fide settlers' on • tho luml. (Heat, hear.)

The Minister in Reply, ■The Hon. IT. D. BELL then briefly replied. It would be quite easy, he said, to do what was proposed by the Hon. II r. ,Ormond, and issuo debentures for the acquirement of estates for settlement. Quito easy—merely, the matter of .a printing press and the seal of tho Government upon the debentures. But it required a degre? of courage—which he hart to admit ho did not possess—to face such a' tremendous incubus as would be created by tho issue of tho debentures. There was no difference in policy between Mr. Ormond and himself—tho speaker—and tho only issue between them, ho contended, was this' matter of purchase by debentures. Hs was sincerely sorry the ' proposals of the Government did not meet with Mt. Ormond'e favour, as ho valued the influence of tho honourable gentleman's support. As to the suggestion from the Hon. Mr. Anstey that pastoral licenses should be converted into permanent leases, he could only remark that that honoiiniblo gentleman's proposal was "ridiculous and preposterous." He himself (the speaker) held a pastoral license —a sheep walk—which, as with all such licenses, was determinable at any time by tho Government. Yet his honourable friend suggested that the holders of these licenses should be accorded the rights and privileges of lessees. The idea was absurd. ■, The Council then went into Committee, without division. Progress was immediately reported, and the Council rof-o at 11.15 p.m.