THE LAND BILL

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 1889, 18 October 1913, Page 6

THE LAND BILL

PASSED BY THE HOUSE. END OF THE DEBATE. Tho Hon. D. BUDDO (Kaiapoi) resumed tho debate on the third reading of the Land Bill at 3.40 p.m. He admitted that lie had long realised that the freehold would have come about soon whatever Government had been in office. He alleged that aggregation was going on, and lie urged that tlio Houso and tho Government should tako notice of it. So far as the settlement of light land was concerned, this could bo be well enough left to tho operations of the graduated land tax. The irtUlamc.iit of rioh arena in small Mdtasa would) 'hats to bo dono to cun&Ms

by the Government, because the land to bo purchased- must bo heavy fertile land. Ho would have liked to have seen tho tenants given leases with rights of renewal. The Best Land Bill. Mr. D. BUICIC (Palnierston) congratulated the Prime Minister on having brought down a good workable freehold Land Bill. He believed it was the best Land Hill that had ever been introduced, but it would not bo final. As tho country progressed, moro regulations would Jiavo to bo mado to meet the changed conditions. Much had been said about tho land laws of the future, but ho suggested that the people of tho future would know oxactly what they wanted. He went on to say that parting with tho freehold did not mean that the land was washed off tho map, and tho land could always bo dealt with as long as the Legislature kept away from tho law of entail and -retained tho graduated land tax. Ho did not believe there was any ground for the fear of aggregation; any aggregation that would go on in tho face of the graduated land tax would not amount to much. Ho oould sympathise with the beliofs of tho leaseholders in the House, and .he could admiro their adherence to a lost cause, but ho thought _ their action in obstructing the Land Bill had been very unreasonable. He_ believed tho Bill would bo a good ono for tho country and good for tho settlers going on the land. The Bill gave every settler a chance of acquiring his holding for his own, and would encourage him to do his best to mako his land productive.

Sir. T. M. WILFORD (Hutt), who had not previously spoken on the Bill, said he had, ever since he entered Parliament, favoured the optional tenure, with limitation of area, and on every occasion when tho question was raised he had voted for this. He did not think the Bill contained sufficient safeguards 'aggregation. His (Mr. Wilford's) opinion was that the Lands for Settlement Act had outlived iti usefulness, and that tho bursting Up of large estates could be best done b,? the graduated land tax. He declared that child slavery was still rampant in some of tho milking districts. Last of all, he said that ho, in common with other members, wanted to boo moro rapid settlement, but he waß afraid tho Primo Minister was not sincere in hia desiro to settle the large estates.

(Mr. Wilford hod spoken to four Oppositionists, threo Labourites, and a full House of Government men.)

Mr. T. W. RHODES (Thames) replied again to the allegations previously made against him, and repeated liis declaration that the people of Thames did not opposa the granting of the freehold of Hauraki mining lands. The reason that more of thi3 land had recently been applied for was that they had received with satisfaction, and had relied upon, an assurance that they would be given a better tenure. The late member for the district had advocated this reform, and Mr. Greenslade, late member for Waikato, had supported the proposal. Ho believed that the settlement and the clearing of the land would assist in the discovery of minerals, and it followed that the Bill, instead of hindering the development of • mineral resources, would operate in a contrary direction.

Mr. J. CRAIGIE (Tlmaru) said that the land policy of the last.twenty years had been a groat success, and had enabled many poor men to get on to the land. Ho dissented from the policy contained in the Bill, and contended that logically this policy should be extended to municipal and othor endowments. There were some good clauses in the Bill, notably those improving the tenure of pastoral runs. Theso lands were now under what he considered the ideal leasehold tenure. Ho hoped that some effort would bo made in the Upper House to strike out the freehold provisions from the Bill and substitute a tenure resombling that applied to pastoral lands. Ho believed that the Government before next elections would put another turn up6n the screw so far as the graduated tax was concerned. There was a demand for it, and it would be a battle-cry at nextelection. Mr. Laurenson Again. Mr. G. LAURENSON (Lyttelton} declared that the giving of the freehold to Crown tenants wris a national blundor. He referred again to the letter which he had read in the House, in which the writer mado somo charges against Mr. T. W. Rhodes. He declared that tho writer of tho letter was an old friend of his, and a man of good character, and he accused Mr. Rhodes again of having introduced a olause by which ho would personally benefit. Mr. Laurenson rend tho letter again. Mr. Massey: I ask that tho letter be laid upon the tablfl. Mr. Laurenson: This is an extract from the letter, and I will lav the extract on tho table. He asked whether the member for Thames denied that the statement'in tho lotter, that ho held 2000 acres of land, which he could convert into freehold, and make probably a considerable sum out of it, owing to tho proximity of the land to a main road. Mr. Rhodoa said ho had only 1000 acres, and tho rest of the statement was likewise, not correct. Mr. Laurenson: Your son has another 1000 acres. Mr. Rhodes: Yesj but not approached by a road. Mr. Laurenson went on to speak of "the brazen effrontery" of a member who would introduce legislation 'o benofit himself. Ho read the supplementary Ordor Paper, introduced by Mr. Rhodes. "I ask any man . . ho continued, "any man with a sense of decency, would he introduce that whon it was affecting him personally. ... I don't think thore is ono of the eighty men in this House who will say "

Sinister Motives. Mr. F. H. Smith: Is the hon. member in order in imputing sinister motives to another member ? Mr. SPEAKER ruled that when a letter concerning a member was read in the House, and the member in question said that it waß absolutely untrue, it was not in order to read that letter again. Further, a member must not impute improper motives to another member of the House.

Mr. Laurenson said that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Rhodes) and his family owned 2000 acres of this area, and ho had introduced an amendment that had practically a direct financial bearing upon tho area. He knew what the opinion of tho country would be on the matter.

A Member Maligned. Mr. J. Gi- COATES (Kaipara) said that ho wanted to say a word or two about) a man who had been absolutely maligned—tho member for Thames. Mr. Rhodes had been attacked vindictively. Ho had beon accused of changing his vote in the House and of having beon bought by tho granting of tho freehold in respect of tho Hauraki pastoral leases. Ab ar matter of fact, the proposal'to grant tho freehold of these lands had been raised years ago. It was brought up by tho Hon. T. Y. Duncan in 1910. Members who had attacked Mr. Rhodes had been animated by a desire to vent political spleen. As to Mr. Laurenson, was he not a member of a deputation which waited upon tho Prime Minister some time ago and asked that a pension should bo granted to ex-members of Parliament after a term of years? Had not Mr. Laurenson supported a proposal that tho honorariums of honourable members should bo ircroased and would ho not vote in that direction ?

Mr. M'Calluin: To take effect after next general election. Mr. Coates: Fiddlesticks! Is it to he said that because I hold a piece of land my mouth is to bo tied? In the case of the Hauraki leases, he continued, the right# of tho Stat-9 «nrn Isijing ctmcnrm!, m 4 ®rttloo»pt was feting

Membors of the Mackenzie Ministry had been vindictive in endeavouring to sheet homo the chargo against Mr. Rhodes. The State Protected. Mr. Coates entered into a detailefl defence of tho action taken by Mr. Rhodes in regard to tho Hauraki pastoral leases. The sub-clause that Mr. Rhodes had introduced was faulty, ho remarked, but the ovident intention of tho member for Thames was to safeguard tho interests of tho State, and not his own. The position arrived at was that tho State retained an absolute control over minerals. Defending the freehold -tenure in general, Mr. Coates pointed out that many peoplo had como out to this country to get freeholds because they were tired of being tenants at Home. Ho supported the graduated tax and provisions designed to prevent aggregation. Mr. Coates went on to ask tho member for Wairau how it was that he had voted with the leaseholders on tho Bill, instead of with the freeholders. Mr. M'.Callum would find it pretty difficult to explain the fact that ho had voted with the eighteen leaseholders, instead of with the forty-nine freeholders, in viow of_ tho circumstance that ho had proclaimed himself as strong a freeholder as the Prime Minister. The Government should employ agents throughout the country to locate tho most suitable lauds to bo purohased for settlement. At present the Government had no effective means at command of getting into touch with the owners of tho most suitable land.

Mr. M'Calium said, in personal explanation, that he was a freeholder 'n regard to future tenancies. He had always opposed putting a purchasing clause in existing leases. Mr. MaoDonatd'a View. Mr. W. D. S. MACDONALD (Bay of Plenty) oontended that the Bill would promote hardly any new settlement. To his mind, it was a quostion whether a man with a 999 years' loa6e. paying "8J per cent, on it, was not Better off than a man who converted suoh a lease into a freehold. Whatever Government was in power, there was no question that some incentivo must be given to the people who wont into the back-country and opened it up. The position'of settlers of this class would be vory little bettered under the Bill. Ho could not see that it going to confer any very groat benefit on anybody. His complaint against the Bi'l was that it provided no better means te the settler of getting on tho land, and no hotter means of acquiring largo estates.- And the trouble about tho purchase system was that to carry it on a Government must raise a great deal of money, not only for tho actual purchase, but for tho roading after subdivision.

Dofenoo of Mr. Rhodes. Mr. E. P. LEE (Oomaru) aaidhewas glad that the Government had introduced the legislation for whioh tho country had so long been crying out. And tie strenuous opposition to it on tho part of the leaseholders proved that there waß_ something new in the Bill. Ho had risen to speak mainly on the attack mode on tho honourable member for Thames. The effect of it might be to discredit Mr. Rhodes in the country, .though it could not do him anything but good in his own district, where ho was so well known. Mr. Rhodes had not kept secret in any way the fact that ho was the .holder of one of theße licenses. It had been alleged that he had kept this secret, and that ho had introduced a clause which wou'd benofit him. The fact was that the effect of his sub-clauso' would have limited his rights, making them loss than they would have been if the Government proposals had remained unamended. Ho (Mr I<ee)' would not have objected to the Opposition criticising the clause, but he thought it waa very unfair and wrong on thoir part to impugn the bona fides of the member for Thames. Mr. Rhodes had been held up to opprobrium byi Opposition members, who knew full well that his proposal would, have had tho effect of limiting his rights as a freeholder. If they had a spark of manliness in them they would withdraw.

Attacks Ropoatfld. Mr. H. ATMORE (Nelson) still held that the action of tilio member (for Thames was at tho very least injudicious, and questionable, and by no means so blameless as the member for Oamaru had sought to make out. The member for Thames had been guilty of something that was not abovo-board, and that did not redound to his credit. Mr. SPEAKER: The honourable member must not impute improper motives to any honourable member of the House. Mr. Atmore continued to discuss Mr, Rhodes's conduct. Later, speaking of the Bill, he urged tihat it was not a settlement Bill. The only really effeotive mothod of making large holdings available for closer eottlement was by -the imposition of such a heavy graduated land tax that it would not pay the present holders to retain them. Mr. J. PAYNE (Grey Lynn) condemned the Bill. Freehold tho Only Tenure. Mr. F. H. SMITH (Waitaki) replied to assertions made by Oppositionists to the effect that the Bill would make it more oxpensive for settlers to get on the land than it had been formerly. He instanoed a case of purchase of an estate by the late Government, at £20,000 above tho taxablo value, and over and above this there was £6000 added for reading. Tho result was that the settlers • were paving more for their land than if the block had been subdivided by a private'owner. The attitude of the Opposition had been peculiar on the Bill. Ho would like to know where the member for Avon stood on the Bill. Mr. Russell had voted for the second reading, and on every division in Committee he had voted against it. He (Mr. Smith) was in favour of the freehold as being the best tenure for the oountry. If tho Opposition had their way thoy would have had all the lands leased from the Crown under the 83-years' lease.

Something About "Rurianga." Mr. G. W. RUSSELL (Avon) said he had voted for the rotention of the leasehold as tho proper tenure on which to have State lands settled, but he had voted for it only so far as State lands wero concerned. He accused tho Government of having broken their pledge in that they had pledged themselves to give the freehold to tenants on l.i.p. and settlement lands at tho original value, and tho Bill did not in fact give this. He agreed that tho freehold ought to bo granted to the holders of the 999-years' leasos, and to the holders of 66-years' leasos with a perpetual right of renewal. He did not believe the freehold should be given to tenants of Settlement lands. A' reference had been made to his estalo, Runanga. He claimed that he had as much right to go into tho open market, and buy a blook of land as the Prime Minister had to hold his farm in the Pukekohe distriot. Mr. Massey: What did you blame Mr. Rhodos for? Mr. Russell said he had gone Into the market and bought a piece of land which had never been tho property of tlieiState. Ho had never tried to benefit himself at the exponso of the State. Mr. Allen: Did you ever try to sell to tho State? Mr. llusscll: If you apply to the Prime Minister ho will be able to say, and I am willing to discuss that with him. If tlio honourable -gentleman wishes to break a confidenco which evidently ho has had bo may do so. (Laughter.) Mr. Russell went on to condomn the Government on general grounds. ■ Mr, Allen! you alt down will .jjgE, kii ca irfMwses esu wj a Lc&s&<

holdor or a freeholder P I haven't been able to mako out yet. Mr. Russell said that he would like to see tho State lands leased for terms of 30 years with a right of renewal. For the Test he 'had no objection to men owning their own holdings. Mr. Okey: You aro a leaßolholdor, then ? Mr. Russell admitted that so far as State lands woro concerned ho was. Mr. F. MANDER (Marsden) said he was a strong supporter of tho freehold tenure. ' A Labour Viow. Mr. J. ROBERTSON (Otaki) declared himself opposed to tho Bill, and to the principles contained in it. He thanked the Prime Minister for accepting an amendment ho had moved in Committee providing for some effective limitation of area in respect of village settlement holdings. PRIME MINISTER IN REPLY. THE GOVERNMENT'S PLEDGES. The PRIME MINISTER rose to reply at 11.42 p.m. Ho said that if the debate had endod on tho previous evening ho would not havo replied at all, but since it had continued so long ho would reply briefly. The debate had been dragged on for such a. length that it _ was almost impossible to say anything now. Tho member for' Avon, in an extraordinary speech, had accused the Government of breaking its pledges. As a, fact the Government had dono particularly well in keeping tho pledges it had made prior to last election. No Government could carry out all its preelection pledges in 0110 session, but ho believed that tho country was satisfied with what had been accomplished. Tho member for Avon had accused tho Government of failing to rcduce industrial taxation. Before tho session came to an end there would bo taxation reduo tions. It had been s impossible to reduce taxation last session, aud it was not advisable to go very faT in that direction now. Tho Government must keep up a strong finance. _ Mr. Russell had' also said that the Legislative Council had not been reformed. Tho Government hadi dono everything thst it could do under tho circumstances. Although up to the present it had not succeeded in carrying through its reform there would bo no hanging back and no halting between two opinions. The Government proposed to go on until the Legislative Council Jbccame, as it ought to be, more representative of the people than it was at the present day.

The Freehold Option. Another accusation of the member for Avon was that the Government had broken its pledge to give the freehold of lease in perpetuity settlement lands to tenants at tho original value. Tho truth was that tliero was not tho hundredth part of a penny difference botwetin tho original value and tho actuarial value in the Bill. t Mr. Hanan: Why speak of the actuarial value, thenP The Prime Minister said that if he had not ho would have beon acoused by the Opposition of giving away the property of tho people. Mr. Russell had said that there was a net profit of £60,000 per annum from the lands acquired under the Lands for Settlement Act. _ The statement would not bear examination, but in any case when tho freehold was sold tho State would get a better return on the money sunk in these lands than it did now. Taking into account the rebate allowed for prompt payment of rent, tenants of settlement lands paid. 4 por cont. Who would say that money was not worth more than 4 per c-ent. ? Mr. Russell's Principles, The Prime Minister went on to twit the membor for Avon with his desortion of leasehold principles. He quoted a statement made by Mr. Davey last year about the member for Avon, on an occasion wlion ho declined to vote for the leasehold: "Wo havo witnessed a good deal of twisting and turning in this Houso, but the member for Avon would take a lot of beating." Mr. Massey next adapted a lino from "Faust," in stating that the member for Avon had first endured tha freehold,then pitied the freeholders, and thon embraced "reohold for himself. The Prime Minister continued that he did not want to bo personal, but it had always appeared to him an extraordinary thing that the 'largo landowners on the other side of the House were so opposed to tho proposal that any small man, any tenant of the Crown, should have the right of obtaining the freehold. As to Mr. Russell'b contention that tenants with E&ort leases should not be granted the freehold, Mr. Massoy pointed out that optional tenuro tenants had the right to' acquire the freehold after six years. Leaseholders with a 21-yeai^-t-erm. were surely as well entitled to the freehold. Tho Member for Thames. The Prime Minister next dealt with tho attack that had been mado upon the member for Thames (Mr. T. W. Rhodes). He explained that Mr. Rhodes had assisted in drafting a subclauso intended to safeguard the interests of owners, and that it was hiß anxiety to look after the interests of his constituents that gave rise to all the trouble. The point was raißed as to whether the amendment was in order, and 1 Mr. Speaker had ruled that it was not, and the clause disappeared. After the clause, was ruled out ho arranged for a new clauso, and when the new clause was submitted to tho House there wa.3 not a single obieotion against it. It safeguarded absolutely tho interests of t£o three parties—the State, tho miners, and the settlers.

Good for tho DEstrlot. He read a letter from an Auckland business man congratulating' him upon his proposals to deal with the Hauraki lands. Ho (Mr. Massey) thought that this opinion, one of general approval, would be the opinion of those who understood the position in regard to tho Hauraki lands. It was worthy of remark too that the non-reßidenco clause in the Bill was already in existence as affecting the Hauraki pastoral leases, and exactly tho same conditions were attached to non-rasidenco as in the now clause in the Bill. Tho 21 years' lease tenure was found to bo exceedingly unsatisfactory.

Mr. Russell: Why apply the freehold to Hauraki and to no other part of the country?

Mr- Massey: Because thore is a more urgent demand for the freehold for lands in Hauraki than in any other part of New Zealand. Ho added that the agitation for a better tenure to these lands was no new thing, dating back as it did to 1908. Every succeeding Minister of Lands had been interviewed on tho point, and always the request had been that thero should be a better tenure—preferably tho optional system applied to ordinary Crown lands. His own opinion was that it would have been difficult to give the settlors a good tenuro without giving them tho freehold. .

Contemptible and Cowardly. He rogrotted exceedingly tho unfair attack made on the membor for Thames for party and political purposes. Ho considered tho incident with regard to this attack upon tho member tho most contemptible and cowardly incident that had happened during tli'o 19 years ho had been a member of Parliament. Ho was prepared to say this on any platform, and ho meant every word of what ho said. Somo members of tho Houso had gono down SO per cent, in bis estimation on account of this attack on tho member for Thames.

It was absurd to accuse Mr. Rhodes of having done wrong in voting on legislation which affected his own interests. There wero Crown tenants in the House, and it was not suggested that tlwy should not vote on Land pills. Lu tho eawe way mom tars bad

voted to raise their own salaries. He regretted that a thing like this should be used vindictively to attack a member. Groundless Attacks. A good deal had been said; about tho unearned increment of this land at Hauralri, but did membors of the Houso know that the settlers wero not permitted to acquire the freehold at tho original valuo, but at the valuo at tho time of purchase? It had been said that it was tho duty of tlio Government to provido land for the landless. This was exactly wliat tho Government wero doing. Sinco tho beginning of tho year tliey had bought as nearly as possible 160,000 acres for subdivision. Ho did not know that they would bo able to buy much moro during the remainder or the year. Before tho end of tho year ho hoped all this land would bo occupied by industrious settlors. It had also been said that the Government was not anxious to provent aggregation, but tho prevention of aggregation had' been provided for moro effectively in the present Bill than in any previous Bill. Third Reading Carried. A division cm tho motion for tho third reading was called by Dr. Newman. Tho Bill was read a third time by S9 votes to 14. The deolairation of the division waa rooeived with applause from tiho Government benches. Following waa the division fat:— Avos (39): Allen, Atmore, Bell, Buchanan, Buick, Campbell, Coates, Dickson, Escott, Fisher, Fraser, Guthrio, Herdman, Herries, Hine, Hunter, Lee, MacDouald, Malcolm, Mandor, Massoy, Myers, Nosworthy, Okey, l'earce, Pomare, Reed, Rhodes (2), Scott, Smith (2), Statham, Sykes, M. Thomson, Ward, Wilkinson, Wilson, Young. Noes (14): Davey. Hanan, Hindmarph, Laurenson, M Oallum, A. K. Newman, Payne, Rangihiroa, Robertson, Russell, Seddon, Veitoli, Webb, Witty. Pairs i ■ Ayes: Harris, Bradhey, J. Bollard, B. Newman, Anderson, Olark, R. F. Bollard, Wilford, J. 0. Thomson. Noob : Craigie, Dicklo, Oolvin, Buxton, Forbes, Carroll, Glover, Ngata, Isitt. Mr. G. W. Russell, who voted for tho second reading of the' Bill, reversed' his vote on the third reading. Tho House rose at 0.22 a.m.