PRIME MINISTER'S REPLY.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 1876, 9 October 1913, Page 4

PRIME MINISTER'S REPLY.

CRITICS DEMOLISHED. BIG MAJORITY FOR FREEHOLD. The PRIAIE AIINISTER said that tho adverse criticism of the Bill had been so weak and ineffective that it was scarcely necessary for him to reply. Ho had been interested in tho speeches of those honourable members on tlio other side who had announced themselves as freeholders and then proceeded to pull tho Bill to pieces from every possible point of view. Ho estimated tho support of thoso members at its truo value, and had no doubt that their constituents would do so also. Mr. Ell had expressed tho opinion that settlers who had taken up national endowment lands wero perfectly satisfied with tho tenure. It was possible that somo of them were satisfied, but lie knew that somo of them wero extremely dissatisfied with tho position in which they found themselves placed. On taking up tho renewable leases they wero not aware that they were' taking up endowment land. They wero not informed of the fact, unfortunately for them. When told that thero was no chance of their obtaining tho freehold, they at once asked tho Minister of Lands to put them in the position in which they had expoctcd to find themselves. Alany of them were so dissatisfied that they had abandoned and forfeited the land, and left it lying idle. Ho simply mentioned this by way of correcting'tho opinion expressed by the member'for Christchurch South. Air. Hindmarsh had accused him of inconsistency, because, somo years ago, ho found.'fault with tlio amount of money that it was deemed neccssary to borrow for settlement purposes. He S-ould say the samo thing to-day. It was to somo extent bccauso of what had taken place a few years ago that this Bill was now beforo the Houso. When this Bill camo into operation ho felt certain of raising, as a result of its operation and that of the Act of last year, at least £250,000 a year. They would avoid borrowing to that extent. Ho took exactly the same position on the land question as ho had some years ago. Freehold Benefits. Air. Webb had said that private property in land enslaved the peoplo of a country.. That was news to him. Another story was told by the experienco of such countries as Denmark and France. There were no more independent people in the world than the French freeholders. Was it not a fact that tho people of Ireland had benefited greatly under tho operation of Wyndham's Bill? The freehold tended to improve tho position of tlio people on the land. Could his friends tell him of a country in tho world where tho leasehold had been a success? Air. Webb: Where has it been tried ? Air. Forbes (to Air. Alassoy): In New Zealand. Tho Prime The leasehold was such a failure in New Zealand that the people of the country sent back a tremendous majority to wipe the leasehold off tho Statute Book. The leasehold principlo had been a success in individual instances such as Cho'viot, but never in a national sense. Mr. Ell: Would you take a vote ? Tho Prime Minister: I would bo quite willing, but I would put this question: "Are you in favour of tho freehold?" That was put to the people at- last election, ami they gave a very ilelinito reply. The Real Dividing l.ino. It was generally understood that both Air. Craigie and* Air. Sidoy were freeholders. These lion, members ought to be consistent. Tho real dividing lino in tho House was between men who enjoyed and appreciated the freehold, and wero willing to extend it to others, and men. on the other side of the House, who themselves 'enjoyed (lie trochoid, but denied it to the other fellow. Promoting Subdivision. Mr, Craigio had said that the Bill

I would Jiot. increase tho number of settlors. He ventured to say t.hat tho prediction was absolutely incorrect. Tho Bill was intended to increase the number of settlers by promoting subdivision. The application of that part of the Bill was intended to apply to privately-owned land, and it would very greatly increase tho number of settlers by compelling tho subdivision of sonio or tho larger estates. When that part of the Bill was brought inio operation, it would bring about tho subdivision of many largo estates not thought of at the present moment. The lion, gentleman had rofeincd to tho exodus to Australia. This had almost stopped within tho last twelve months, and many farmers' sons who went away prior to twelve months ago had come oack. A member: Because you are in office? Mr. Massey: Vies; because they see now a chance of getting a bit of freehold. Optional Tenuro. The member for Waimarino had stated that no attempt had been made to interfere with tho optional tienuro in this country. Such an attempt had been made in 1 ( J0G in Mr. M'Nab's Land Act. In that Act an attempt was mado to do away with the freehold in this country. Mr. R. W. Smith: Was it carried? The l'rime Minister: No, You ran away from it, but when u Government introduces a policy measure it must bo taken that tlicso aro 'its opinions and principles. Aggregation. It had been said that the aggregation piovisions wero not worth tho paper they wero written on, hut ho believed they would bo of great valuo to the people of this country. He believed that the aggregation proposals in his Bill would work smoothly and effectively, which was more than could have been expected of the aggregation provisions in a Bill introduced a few years ago which proposed to impose a penalty of fivo years' imprisonment on settlers who aggregated land beyond a certain area. Where would tho member for Avon have been if that had passed ? Mr. Russell: Where woulcl you have been? Mr. Massev: I would bo ill gaol. Mr. Russell: That is just where you ought to be. (Laughter.) Mr. Masscy: I have not tho slightest dcubt that is' the "genuine opinion of the henourablo gentleman, in which case, as in so many others, his opinion is worth verv little indeed I Regarding tho 099 years' lease Sir. Massey said that if a Socialistic Government came into power one of tho first things it would do would bo to tear up this lease. It had been in their printed platform. He continued that tlio Government hoped to promote settlement by vigorously administering tho Land for Settlement Act, and tho Land Settlement Finance Act. Another factor making for settlement was the Graduated Land Tax, which was increased to a great extent by tho Act of last year. Settlement would come also from tho subdivision of land bv private owners, and tho purchase of Nativo land not required by the Native owners. In addition to this tho application of tho freehold principle would enablo land to bo profitably occupied which would not bo taken up by settlers in tho ordinary co-.irso. In passing he mentioned that nearly 700 settlers had taken advantage of tho freehold system under tho Act of last year. No Loss of Revenue. In reply t-o Mr. Russell ho said ho had not heard of any caso wl.ero nionoy was lent by tho Advances Department to tenants i'or the purchase of tho freehold. It had been said by Mr. Russell that tho granting of the freehold would cut down revenue, but the honourable gentleman must remember that wo could not,eat our cake and have it. If revenue was cut down tho capital camo back to tho State, and tho State could use tho capital with advantage. Thero appeared to bo loss of revenue, but really thero was none. Mr. Russell: Wo aro making £00,000 a year on tho Land for Settlement Account now. Mr. Massey: Yes; but when the money corncs back it will bo used in tho samo way again. Mr. Witty: There won't be a profit, though. Mr. Massey said that ho would take caro to soo "that when an estate was subdivided a reasonable margin of profit would be preserved to tho State. It was absurd to say, also, that' tho grant of the freehold was taking tho land away from future generations. Leaseholders! The member for Riccarton had said ho was a very strong leaseholder, and opposed to tho freehold. Mr. Witty: You never luiew me vote for the freehold in your life. Mr. Massey said that onco Mr. Witty had been a freeholder. Mr. Witty had been a very active ..member of tho Farmers' Union, and had subscribed to the union's platform, one of the planks of which was the grant of tho freehold to Crown tenants. Tho member for Lyttolton, too, had been a freeholder in the past, ho found. Mr. Laurenson had asked whether there was a man in tho House who would go on to tho platform and defend the principles of the Bill. Ho (Mr. Massoy) would go on to any platform in tho country to defend tho principles in the Bill. Ho behoved that when the principles of the Bill wore thoroughly explained and understood, a lingo majority of tho peoplo would endorse tho freehold policy in it, as they had at last election. Mr. Witty, in porsonnl explanation, explained that ho had always, as a member of tho Farmers' Union, voted against the plank quoted by Mr. Massey. Tlio second reading of tho Bill was agreed to by 49 votes to 18. The Division List. Following was tho division list:— Aye's (49): Allen, Anderson, Atmoro, Bell, Bollard (2), Bradno.v, Brown, Buchanan, Buddo, Buxton, Campbell, C'oates, Dickson, Escott, Fisher, Fraser, Glover, Guthrie, Harris, Ilerdman, Horries, Hine, Hunter, Lee, Mac Donald, Mander, Massey, Myers, Nosworth.v, Okcy, Poarce, Poland, l'oniare, Reed, Rhodes (2), Russell, Scott, Smith (2) Statham, Sykes, Thomson (2), Ward, Wilkinson, Wilson, Young. Noes (18): Craigie, Ell, Forbes, Hauan, Isitt, Laurenson, M'Callum, M'Kcnxie, Ngata, Parata, Payne, ,ilangihiroa, Robertson, Seddon, Side.v, Veitcli, Webb, and Witty. Pairs: For, 15. Newman, Buick, and Malcolm. Against: Davey, A. •K. Newman, and Hindmarsh. The House roso at 1.20 a.m.