THE LAND BILL.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 1883, 17 October 1913, Page 4

THE LAND BILL.

AGAIN IN COMMITTEE. THE MINING CLAUSE. When the.Houso met at 7.30 p.m. it proceeded to deal with the Land Laws Amendment Bill, which was down for consideration of report. Tho PRIME MINISTER moved to

recommit tho Bill in order to amend Clause 25 and add two now clauses.

Sir Joseph Ward asked that Clause 25 should bo recommitted in such a way that other amendments than those proposed by the Prime Minister might be moved.

Tho Prime Minister refused to alter his motion, remarking tliat lie had a lively recollection of ten hours being wasted upon Clause 25 when it' was last in Committee.

Sir Joseph Ward said that tho best proof that time had not been wasted was that tho Primo Minister was now moving to amend tho clause. He wantr ed an opportunity of voting against the whole clause.

Tho Prime Minister said that the ■Leader of the Opposition would have tho opportunity of \'oting against the whole 'clause.

SIR JOSEPH WARD said he wished to stato his reason for acting as he had. Ho was of opinion that Clause 25 would establish a position that would be very undesirable and would be unique in tho history of tho Dominion. It proposed to enable a licensee in tho Hauraki district to have a freehold over mining areas. And this right would be given only in this one part of tho whole country. Why should this part bo singled out as against all other parts of New Zealand? Ho went on to speak in detail about tho possibilities of the clause. It seemed to him inexplicable that there was a proposal in tho clause in regard to a particular area, when there was no such proposal in regard to similar areas in other parts of the country. He would be glad to record his vote against the clause. "Astounding Ignorance." The PRIME MINISTER said that tho Leader of tho Opposition had displayed a most astounding ignorance of what was proposed in tho clause, and of the conditions to which it applied. In the Coromandel peninsula there were over 200,000 acres of rough but useful country, which might or might not carry minerals. There was no reason at all why the mining and pastoral industries should not work side by side in this large area. This was the object of the clause. Thero were no reasons why the interests of the State should come into conflict with the interests of tho settler or the miner. Both the settlers' rights and the miners' rights were amply safeguarded under tho new clause. It was quite incorrect to say that land held in fee simple would be closed to prospectors. This was clearly set forth in Clause 25a. Sir Joseph Ward: Look at the proviso. Turn the whole thing into an orchard, and it can't be touched. Mr. Massey: It protects a man s garden. And that's in tho Mining Act now. If the honourable gentleman knew the law of tho country, which ho has been administering for so long, he would not make so many mistakes. Interests of the Country. What objection, he asked, could bo raised to the clause Tho interests of miners and settlers were all protected. Mr. Isitt: The interests of tlie country! Mr. Massey: The _ interests _ of the country! Surely it is in tho interests of the country to have 250,000 odd acres put to useful purpose carrying sheep or cdttle or ' both-, and the valleys perhaps planted _ out in orchards. The land, he pointed out, was rapidly becoming overgrown with blackberries, and it would got rapidly worse. Surely, honourable members would not say that this was to go oil. It had been said that prominent men were opposed to this legislation. He would like to know who thoso mon wore. He knew no', prominent men an tho district who wore opposed to it. Ho knew,'-of course, that tho matter was being, used for party purposes, and if some peoplo and some newspapers had been objecting to the proposals they were doing so for party purposes. Ho repeated his declaration that no wrong was being done to the national endowments. . ~ The "Bad Precedent." It had been said that it was a bad precedent. How was it a bad precedent? • -v Sir Joseph Ward: It is unique. Nothing of the kind has ever been done before. , . Mr. Massey: "It is a good precedent; the sooner wo establish it tho better. I am not afraid of getting away from tho musty, fusty old methods ot. vears." It was, he continued, being applied only to the Hauraki district because ho knew it would bo good tor the Hauraki district. ■ He was not sure that he could safely .apply the scheme to other mining areas, and with insufficient knowledge of conditions there might be danger of mistake. Finally, he asked Sir Joseph Ward whether he was willing to take the responsibility of keeping all this area of land out of profitable occupation? For his own part, ho was sure the legislation would do good to the district, and would do good to the Dominion. He would do his best to put it on the Statute-book, and' no believed ■it would bo on the Statutebook -in the course of a few days.

A Sinister Suggestion. Mr. G. W. RUSSELL (Avon) said the issue between the two parties was whether the land should be put to use or not. On this both sides were agreed that the land should be used. The Opposition •joined issue with the Prime Minister on the proposal to give a pre-emptive right to the freohold to lessees who had now a tenure of only 21 years. Some of tho leases might have only a year to run. Ho maintained that under the present allegedly unsatisfactory tenure, settlement of the Hauraki lands would have gono on very rapidly in the next ten years. Tho Prime Minister had not given one reason why the tenure, which, according to the amount of land take up under it, must be a favoured tenure, was being changed, or why the freehold was being given to 'the settlers. _ The clause had been opposed because it proposed to legislate for a particular part of the country. He suggested that the Prime Minister had a special reason for trying to please the people of Thames by bribing them with the freehold—to help his supporter in the Thames.

Mr. Rhodes:' Don't you worry about me. Look after yourself. \ Mr. Russoll went on to declaro that the grant of tho freehold would not in fact expedite settlement in the district. The Government had no moral or legal right to grant the freehold to tenants with only 21 years' leases. If the freehold wore granted to those people, on what grounds could tho Prime Minister refuse the freehold to settlers on the ten million acres now held under tho pastoral license P. Tho Opposition would obstruct tho clause as often as possiblo, believing it was an iniquitous piece of legislation. Reply to a Charge. Mr. T. W. RHODES replied to certain accusations made by Mr. Russell. Thoy were the same as were made so often when the obstruction was going on at the €nd of last week, and Mr. Rhodes's reply was, as before, -a complete disavowal. He had, he said, been outrageously maligned. He would not havo believed that members 'of Parliament would have descended so low to inj uro an opponent, but if they only know, they wero giving him the grandest possible advertisement. Tho people of Thames wanted tho legislation that was being introduced, and his action had been entirely in the interests of his electors. His actions had been in the best interests of tho district, and ho knew that his position as a representative in Parliament- had been improving ever since he had been elected. Mr. J. PAYNE (Grey Lynn) said tho trouble about giving tha freehold to mining aroas .was tliat tha cost fif IC?.

suming the surfaco rights might bo so great that it would preclude all possibility of the land being re-opened for mining if gold should bo discovered there. He urged tlmt the tenants should be given a more satisfactory lease. Advocating Settlement. Mr. A. HARMS (Waitcmata) protested against members of tho Opposition, actuated by party spleen, vilifying tho member for Thames. Out of it all, however, the member for Thames had come with clean hands. Referring to tho obstruction to the Land Bill, he said ho was sure that the peoplo of the oountry wero thoroughly disgusted with the waste of public time and money that tho obstruction had caused. Mr. P. C. WEBB (Grey) spoko against the alienation of mining lands. 3lr. J. A. YOUNG (Waikato) said that oitlior certain members did not understand the clause, or they wero deliberately misrepresenting tho Government proposals. Ho explained that a man could not get lands in the Hauraki district by simply applying to the Crown Lands Office. Uio application must be forwarded to the Warden by tho Crown Lands Department, and if the Warden judged the lands applied for to be auriferous, tho application could be vetoed by the Warden. Under tho Government's proposal tho interests of the State wero fully safeguarded, which would permit of tho land being put to profitable use instead of boing held back from occupation. The Amendment Defeated. At 10.45 p.m. a division was taken on Sir Joseph Ward's amendment which had been moved in opposition to Mr. Massoy's motion to recommit the Bill. The amendment waß defeated by 3G votes to 33. .•;*.• Following is tho division list: — Tor the amendment (33): Atmore, Brown, Buddo, Buxton, Colvin, Craigie, Davev, Dickie, Glover, Hanan, Hindmarsn, Isitt, Lauronson, M'Callum, Mac Donald, M'Kenzie, Myers, Ngata, Parata, Payne, Poland. Rangihiroa, Robertson, llussell, Seddon, Sidey, R. W. Smith, J. C. Thomson, Veitch, Ward, Webb, Wilford, Witty. Against (36): Allen, Bell, Bollard (2), Bradney, Buchanan, Buick, Campbell, Coates, Dickson, Fraser, Guthrie, Harris, Herdmau, Horries, Hine, Hunter, Lee, Malcolm, Mandor, Massey, E. Newman, Noswortby, Olcey, Pearce, Pomaroj Reed, Rhodes (2), Scott, F. H. Smith, Sykes, G. M. Thomson, Wilkinson, Wilson, Young.

Pairs. For the amendment: Carroll, A. K. Newman,' Ell, and Forbes. Against: Fisher, Escott, Statham, Anderson. In this division list all tho members of tho House are accounted for except tho Hon. J. A. Millar and Mr. E. H. Clark. On the defeat of- Sir Joseph Ward's amendment Mr. J. Payne moved another amendment to add to tho motion the words "and to consider, a new clause." He read his proposed new clause, but Mr. Speaker ruled that tho clause, as it sought to deal with Crown lands, could have been introduced only on tho recommendation of tho Crown. The clause was therefore ruled out and tho amendment dropped. Tho motion to recommit the Bill was agreed to, and the Prime Minister's proposed new clause was introduced by Governor's Message. Tho clause was a very long ono, but tho effect of it was to conserve all minerals, including coal, ■to tho Crown, and to permit the liolder of tho fce-simplo to rccovcr whon his land is resumed for mining, only in respect of tho surfaco value of the land and tho improvements thereon. Tho new clause was added to the Bill. The Prime Minister said he had omitted to includo tho amendments ill Clause 25 in his motion. He asked tho leavo of the Houso to move his amendments to the clause, but objection was raised by Mr. Wilford and Mr. M'Callum. THE LAST STACE. THIRD READING DEBATE. Tho amendmonts made in Committee Wero agreed to, and at 11.17 p.m., Tho Hon. W. F. MASSES moved the third reading of tho Bill. Sift JOSEPH WARD (Awarua) again called attention to the fact that this was the first time in the history of New Zealand that a special law had been passed applying to a particular locallty. Mr. Massey: You have special Acts for other places. What about Cheviot? Sir Joseph Ward argued that tho Cheviot land, having been taken under tho old Assessment Act, special legislation had to be passed. Personally he thought the proposals regarding the Hauraki lands would be very generally condemned. In his opinion tho principle was vicious, and should not have been included in tho land laws of the country.

"Mr. G. WITTY (Riccarton) found fault with many details of the Bill. He declared that under it tho country would lose and only tho individual would gain. Nothing better could bo found, ho claimed, than tho renewable lease.

'Die discussion was continued bv Mr. R. M'Callum (Wairau), Mr. L. M. Isitt '(Christchurch North), Mr. H. G. Ell (Christchurch South), Mr. J. A. Hanan (Invercargill), Mr. T. Buxton (Temuka), and Mr. A. H. Hindmarsn (Wellington South). The debate was adjourned on the motion of Mr. J. G. Coates and the' House rose at 1.55 a.m. _