GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

Globe, Volume VI, Issue 652, 21 July 1876, Page 3

GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

(From a corespondent of the Press.')

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. Wednesday, July 19. The House resumed at 7.30. CANTERBURY LEASING BILL.

On the second reading of Mr Waaon’s Canterbury Leasing Bill, Mr Rolleston said the House should not agree to it without some graver considerations were urged in favor of it than bad been. He did not think the House would be led away by any class feeling. A question of this kind involved large interests at the present time, and it was not the custom for the House to deal with such by setting class against class. He would be prepared to consider on its merits the question whether the runs should be put up at auction, or whether their value should be judged in another way by the Legislature. It was, open to consideration whether auction was not the best means of dealing with these subjects. The House would consider the question upon the broad ground of expediency in the interests of the country at large, and also in the interest of justice and feelings which actuate men wh® have been acting together on a common understanding over a long period of years, rather than upon legal technicalities. The introducer of the Bill said his proposals put all classes upon an equality, but he (Mr Rolleston) ventured to say if the runs were to be put up to auction in Canterbury tomorrow, the loan companies would be the class most distinctly benefited by them being put up. Those were the only people who would make anything out of it. He did not believe the State would make anything out of it. Ho believed the proposals embodied in this Bill would, if worked assiduously and cleverly in the interests of the people who were specially interested, work to the benefit of the present holders of the runs. What he wished to show in regard to this subject was, that two principles should be observed in deciding the questions. One was that no other rights should be given to the pastoral tenants than grazing rights. In Otago, and he was not now speaking in any wayj offensive, the greatest evils had flowed from a desire to get larger rents, and had been most mischievous to the interests of the country at large, f Mr Macandkew— -It was their own proposal,] He did not wish to see the runholder in Canterbury get compensation for his tenure being taken away, but he wished to see the country kept open for settlement by free selection. Any steps taken by the House in the direction of allowing compensation, whether there was a legal or moral obligation vested with the people, would surely end in a larger, longer, and more permanent tenure being given to the pastoral tenant, which he did not wish to see. The member for Coleridge claimed support for his proposal on the score of economy, but he did not believe it was in any way more economical than that which has met' with general favor by the constituencies in Canterbury, and he would be supported generally by the Canterbury members in that belief. ’ Of course, the appointment of valuers, as proposed under clause 4 of this Bill, was open to every possible objection that the appointment of a commission was open to. He thought, further, that this proposal to appoint a valuator was a sham, or it was playing into the hands of the runholders, If the improvements were held under pre-emptive] rights, the clause dealing with preemptive rights was of no value whatever, and if they were not, and there was no power to immediately secure them, this proposal to appoint valuators was open to every objection that the ardent advocate for the appointment of a commission could urge, In reference to clause 5, fixing the upset price for front lands at sixpence, and back country at fourpence per acre, he said was a dangerous power to leave in the hands of the Waste Lands Board to say what was front and what back country. It seemed to him that the hon member had omitted from consideration a large number of questions that must necesssarily be taken up in connection with a subject of this kind. He ventured to think, and he now spoke with some authority, as his knowledge of the province was second to no man’s, he having travelled over every part of it, that there was back country that took at least four or five acres to carry a sheep, and that there was other country that will carry a sheep to the acre. Yet it could not be divided into classes as proposed. With the proposal in the Bill that the pre-emptive right shall cease after a certain time, he thoroughly agreed. He thought that was generally understood. This was one of those common under standings between the people who have lived under the land regulations of Canterbury. The original idea of preemptive right was the protection of the pastoral tenant in placing down improvements, until such time as he had determined upon the way he could work his run, He admitted that pre-emptive rights had been granted in some instances beyond what a sense of fairness justified, but he did not think because in a few instances those rights had been trenched upon they should on that account judge this question other than by fairness. In Canterbury runholders had acted very fairly, both in respect to their runs and pre-emptive rights. Circumstances had, oversome part of the country, thrown in their way the power to purchase in common with their fellow citizens, and they had the means of availing themseives of this opportunity, This was a necessary constituent of scattered population, and a limited amount of capital for investment, but on the whole it must be admitted that the Waste Lands Regulations of Canterbury had worked well and had created less class feeling than those of any other part of New Zealand or the colonies generally. He had recognised for a long time past that the country had been entering upon a policy which, of necessity, must make greater provision for future settlement and allow of the larger settlement of farmers aud holders upon the lands than had been the case up to the present time, and he believed the Government would be perfectly justified in making considerable reserves for settlement upon pastoral lands, while they would be doing wrong were they to neglect the opportunity for doing so before it passed away. It would be a great mistake for the Government or the Legislature to lend themselves to any class cry, to the settling of one class amongst another, or to placing any limit upon the investment of capital. No worse thing could happen than the Legislature acting spasmodically in a matter of this kind, and lending itself to any form of class legislation. His great desire was to keep the land open for settle-

ment; to give the pastoral tenant no longer tenure and no greater tenure than that of grazing, while at the same time the State should get the largest possible rent. He was aware that this question was brought forward at a time when monetary considerations and the exigencies of the state were very great a 3d that there was no member but who would admit that they must go in for any legitimate means of obtaining revenue which the country could go for ; but he ventured to think it would be a greater mistake to destroy that confidence in the investment of capital which would ensue to anything like a breach of faith. He did not think for a moment that they would do such a thing, but the danger at the present moment, with proposals of this kind, was that the House might be led to take a course that would do a great wrong to the interests of the country. It was a great thing to get a good revenue, but it was a greater thing to break a common understanding that had grown up with the sanction of the people. Mr Harper, in moving that the Bill be read that day six months, referred to the understanding upon which large commercial transactions had been entered into, if not a legal obligation, that the present holders should be granted a renewal of their leases, on terms hereafter to be arranged, and which might be considered fair by the House. There was no provision for dealing with the runs in the event of their not being sold. It was not provided that they should be continued to be held by the present holders on terms to be afterwards arranged. The consequence would be that one or two runs might be sold, and the rest would either be held by the present occupiers, or an Act would have to be passed for dealing with them. This question had been brought before the Canterbury constituencies, and it was a significant fact that not a single constituent had returned a member but who was not pledged by his hustings speeches to the assessment principle. There was a cry about selling the runs, but it gradually died away ; every Canterbury member, with the exception of the member for Coleridge, and about him he was not sure, stood committed to the reassessment scheme. This was a fact that should have some weight with the House. Unless better reasons than those brought forward were urged for bringing in such an arbitrary measure one which would really do great injury to an honorable understanding, that had existed for some time past between the Government and the runholders—he thought the House should either throw out the second reading of the Bill, or carry the amendment he had proposed, Mr Fisher did not agree with the member for Avon, that carrying this measure would be inaugurating a system of class legislature. Credit for something more than human nature must be given to the member for Coleridge for bringing on a resolution which would bring ruin upon himselt. He would vote for the second reading, but would endeavor to alter the details. In his district, the matter was brought prominently forward, and it was generally understood that the lands should be assessed, and then be put up to auction at the price the were assessed at. This would not inflict any injury upon the runholders. Another reason was, that if they left over the question till the expiration of the leases they would be inflicting far greater injury upon the runholders than by doing so. It would be a great wrong to the country to leave legislation upon this matter till the last moment. It had been said if the runs were sold by auction they would fall into the hands of loan companies and speculators. That was the great objection to the present system. They were practically in the hands of the Banks and speculators, the runholders being the nominal proprietors. What the country wanted was that a fair rent should be paid for the runs.

Mr Sheehan commented on the ominous silence of the Government, and the absence of the Commissioner of Lands, The Government were waiting, as they had done many times before, to see which way the wind blows. They were]hunting about the lobbies for a policy. He moved the adjournment of the debate, in order that the Government might give a sign, and indicate what effect this measure would have on their policy. This Bill would open up the lands. Mr Rolleston—They are not shut out at present. Mr Sheehan— That was the statement always made, but he knew in some parts of the country it was regarded almost as treason to endeavour to take up land on a run, and he had known of cases of men being blackballed from clubs for doing so. The principal reason he had for moving the adjournment of the debate was that he would like to see what effect the Bill would have upon the future policy of the colony. On the one side we were to be given one colony and one purse, on the other financial separation of the two islands, each taking its own land fund. He did not wish one part of the colony to steal a march upon ;the other, for this proposal, if carried, meant dealing with one-half the assets of the colony. He moved the adjournment of the debate for three weeks.

Hon 0. 0. Bowen explained that the absence of the Minister of Lands from the House was owing to illness. Had the member for Rodney been present in his place he would have heard the Premier when this Bill was introduced state that the Government intended to bring down a measure dealing with the waste lands of the Crown, and deprecating the introduction of this Bill before that of the Government was considered by the House. As to the hon gentleman’s remark that the Government were seeking about for a policy, had he been in the House that afternoon, he would have heard the Premier tell the House that the policy of the Government was before the country, and that they would give an unqualified opposition to the proposals now before the House. The Government were certainly not prepared to discuss this Bill, seeing that they had given notice that a measure was being prepared to deal with this very subject, and that the Minister for Lands had given notice of another Bill to deal with the administration of the waste land. As to any question of locking up the lands of the country, the Government had shown every desire in the measures they had brought down to keep the lands open for settlement, and he might, so far as the Canterbury lands went, say they had been open to the small holder from the commencement of the settlement, which was more than could be said of other parts of the colony. In Canterbury, enormous purchases for lona fide freeholds were being made on the runs from one end of the province to the other. The Government were not prepared to enter upon the discussion of this measure

but they would be prepared to lay before the House a proposal for dealing with the pastoral lands, which measure would, he thought, be better than this scheme for the revenue of the colony, for the interests of the people, and more satisfactory to the interests of the constituencies of Canterbury, which were most directly interested in the matter. Mr Wakefield expressed his pleasure that an hon member from the other extremity of the colony should take an interest in Canterbury affairs, and thought the fact was significant of the benefit to be derived from abolition, while it also showed that members of a particular locality could not smuggle measurses through the House, He asked why the Government did not on the second reading of this Bill being moved move the previous question or take some equally decisive course. Every Canterbury member looked to the Government to make such a declaration and absolutely reserved their judgment on the measure in the hope that the Government would do so. Had such a declaration been made an acrimonious debate would have been obviated.

Mr J. E, Brown hoped the discussion would be continued till one of the two proposals before the House was determined. For himself he could oppose the measure, as he was not in any way interested with the pastoral pursuits. At the election he did not receive a single vote from squatters in his district, because he was opposed to the view that a few persons enunciated, viz, that the runs should be sold by public auction. He did not know of any more]mischievous policy that could be adopted. It would result in so much gain to the squatters and in loss to the public. When the member for Coleridge was contesting his election he was in favor of the valuation system, then he changed round, and he now stood committed to both systems. After soma remarks by Sir Robert Douglas, who urged the withdrawal of the Bill after the second reading, and Mr Rees, the adjournment of the debate for three weeks was carried. CENSUS BILL. On the second reading of the Census Bill there was a lengthy discussion. The purpose of the Bill, as explained by the Hon Mr Bowen, was to dispense with the cost of a triennial census to be taken next year, and to have the census held simultaneously with the census in England and the larger colonies, namely, in 1881. The proposal was not satisfactory to Mr Stout, who enlarged upon social statistics as an ingredient of social science, and in reply the Minister repeated his explanations, showing that very perfect provision was made for the maintenance of statistical information without resorting to such frequent census taking as was at present the practice of the colony. Mr Reid was in accord with the views of the Government and the objects of the Bill, but thought it desirable that a census should be taken before the expiry of Parliament, and in consideration of the subject of a redistribution of seats. Mr Barff supplemented the suggestion by ironically referring to the possibilities of the readoption of the capitation system. Mr Wakefield, followed by Messrs Sheehan, Rees, and Stout, considered the census held in the colony showed its progress under the present policy. First, an amendment by Mr Rees that a census should be taken in 1876 was negatived by 43 to 17, then an amendment by Mr Wakefield, leaving out the reference to 1881, and affirming merely that the census to be taken in 1876 should not be taken in that year, was lost by one vote, and ultimately the Ministers in charge of the Bill effected a compromise by making that clause read “Not later than 1881.” RATING BILL. On a clause of the Rating Bill, in which the Premier proposed to introduce an amendment providing for the rating of mining property where it is not already so rated, as at the Thames, Mr Gibbs again raised the question of miners not paying local rates having the power to vote, whereupon the Premier took occasion to refer to some of the objects of the Counties Bill. He explained that it was no imperative design of the counties that they should levy rates, and a great deal was given to counties, the export duty on gold, miners’rights, surplus land revenue. Irrespective of rating, holders of miners’ rights could not have under any circumstances more than one vote, and there was a a further provision that they should be registered ; if they had property they wonld only have the vote as ratepayers. The Counties Bill was supposed to discourage rather than encourage taxation for general purposes. Special rates would be more to the purpose and would be fixed by the specific action of the ratepayers. He was not disposed io make it optional for local bodies to rate mining property believing the same to be sufficiently represented by other taxation which would go to counties, but that in particular situations, where taxation was in force, they should have the power to retain or abolish it. The Government would consider the question of coal mines, and if they came to a determination on the subject, would re-commit the Bill. Mr Whitaker intimated his intention of framing a clause that would satisfy a.l parties. They should either rate gold that was in the mine, and not rate gold that was on surface, or they should retain the gold duty and hand it over to the local bodies as taxation, which was the easier mode. He did not see why coal mines should be exempt because the royalty ithey paid meant the rental payable to the Government. Ultimately Sir J. Vogel said he would postpone the whole clause as to the gold duty. His opinion was that if it was merely regarded as subsidy to rates, the present duty of 2s was excessive, but if it was a substitute for royalty, .there was logical reason for continuing it. Progress was then reported. PARLIAMENTARY NEWS. To-day, Sir G. Grey and Messrs Lusk, Whitaker, Sheehan, Macfarlane, and Wood, as representing the Auckland members, met, discussed, and agreed to the proposals of the Canterbury committee for financial separation, with a Federal Government at Wellington, to control Customs, Postal, and other federal matters. The exact proposals of Canterbury are not made known, but this much is certain. They will leave Auckland with half of her Customs revenue to share among the local bodies of that province. There are varied opinions as to what support this move will receive. The opposition whips claim that they can expect a majority of eight, while 38 members stand pledged to their scheme. On the other hand, the Government side say that not more than 36 can be credited to the Opposition. It is the prevalent opinion that Mr Whitaker’s

resolutions will not be carried, since the Government, in carrying out their pledge to localise the land fund, give them unqualified opposition. All the papers here support them, and strongly disapprove of Mr Wakefield’s, the Argus saying they are proposed with characteristic cheek. To-morrow Mr Murray will ask if the Government will consult Parliament before they appoint an Agent-General. It is understood that the financial separation resolutions will be proposed immediately after the secondjreading of the Counties Bill.