Kinohaku Lands.

Kawhia Settler and Raglan Advertiser, Volume IV, Issue 330, 20 September 1907, Page 2

Kinohaku Lands.

DISCUSSION IN PARLIAMENT. The old queHion of the withdrawal of certain Kawhia lands from selection under the optional system five or six yeirs ago came before the House nnci ra' re on Wednesday, and gave the Mi iDtor for Education and the Ljidir of ibe Opposition an opportunity of crossing swords. A petition bad been received from Mr F. So wry and 71 others of Matiere (Ohura) praying that they should have the right >of exchange in occupition with the right of purchase in regard to lands now held by them under lease in perpetuity. The Waste Lands Committee, to which the petition had been referred, reported “that as the subject matter of tbi; petition is being dealt with by the Lind Bill the committee has no re commendation to make.” Mr Jennings said that the lands in question bad been first gazetted as op n for selection under the optional system, but they bad afterwards been withdrawn and again < ffered U’d r lease f‘n perpU d’.y only. He under s’ood that this had been done as the result of representations made to the late Premier by a deputation of members who represented that the land cm tamed minerals. He referred to the Kawhia land*, which he said were

Messrs Lang and Greenslade en d rs d Mr Jennings’ remarks and also referred to the Kawhia lands.

Mr Massey elated that the Kawh<a landi had been advertised as open for selection under the optional system. After, however, a large number of settlers had come from o‘her parts of the colony and inspected the laud, and ex pressed their indention ot going to the ballot, the land was suddenly withdrawn, It was afterwards reopened on lease in perpetuity only, under section 121 of the Land Act, which dealt with lands conlrining minerals. He believed that the land had been withdrawn on the representations of certain members of the House, including the pre ent Minister for Educatian. The Hon. Geo. Fowlds: That is quite wrong. Mr Massey said that he was absolutely clear about wbat had happened. A great injustice bad been done to the settlers, and he hoped that a clause woulu be inserted in the new Land Bill in order to put the matter right. Tbe Hou. George Fowlds said that he wished to repeat bis denial made on a prevous occasion that he had never been present at any fleputat on at which the question of the Kawhit lands had been represented go tbe late Premier. The deputation in which be took part waited upon Mr Seddon long before the Kawhia lands were opened, or spoken of as likely to be opened. The question discussed was that of stopping tbe sale of Crown lands genera Hy. He hoped Mr Massey would withdraw bis statement.

Mr Massey; I must accept the statements made by the hon. gen tieman,but I have never previously heard bim say that he was not present at the deputation. The Hon. Jas. M'Gowan said it was true that tbe Kawhia lands bad been advertised tor selection under tbe optional system, but it was found out that these lands contained minerals, (Several members : “No.”) He did not deny that the intending settlers who went to Kawhia when tbe lands were first advertised had been disappointed, but it was absurd to say that the present tenants had any grievance, as they had taken up the jand upon tbe terms as advertised tbe second.

Mr Laurenson said that the people who were disappointed were certain Auckland speculators, who had desired to have a “cut in.” It was they, and not the farmers who felt aggrieved. Mr Massey quoted from the repot of a deputation, which waited open the late Mr Seddon in September, 1901 and at which Mr Fowlds was present, the deputation being introduced by Mr Hogg. Mr Fowlds: Thai deputation had nothing whatever to do with tbe Kawhia lands.

Ma Massey: Tbe deputation asked that there should be only one lease in future, viz., the lease in perpetuity, wi’b periodical revaluation. Mr Jennings, referring to Mr Laurtmson’s remarks, said that the Auckland people had had nothing to do with the matter. It was also noteworthy that since that occasion land adjoining the block referred to had been opened under the optional sys tern.

Mr Hogg said that at tbe time that the deputation waited on the late Premier he (Mr Hogg) did not know that there was such a place as Kawhia in existence. (Laughter.) Mr Symes said the settlers in question were undoubtedly suffering a hardship. As for minerals, he challenged auyb )dy to find enough coal on the land to boil a billy, and as for Mr Liarenson’s statement he could only say that the petition was from the setters on the land, and that the so c illeJ Auckland speculators had no chmg to do with it. The land since thrown open under the optional tenure was nearer the coal measures th in the land in question. Mr J. Allen said that at tbe deputation referred to the Auckland lands (which included Kawhia) jwere particularly referred to. Mr Aden said that the reference had been made by Mr Napier, who mentioned an area of 250,000 acres, which undoubtedly included tbe Kawhia lands. He (Mr Allen) understood that 1000 intending settlers went to Ifawhia when tbs lands were advertised for sale, and that on an average they spent £3O each in getting there. The Hon. T. Y. Duncan : Oh, that is ail humbug. (Laughter.) Mr Fowlds repeated that m reference! direct or indirect! to tho Kawhia

lands was made by any member of the deputation. The Hon. T. Y. Duncan (Chairman of the Lands Committee and the late Minister for Landa) said that tbe Ka wnia lands were not mentioned by the deputation. He had made inquiry from the officers of the Department as to whether there were indications of minerals on the lands, and the reply was in the affirm Hive. Mr Jennings : Why has land alongside since been opened under tbe optional system ? Mr Duncan : Probably further investigation proved to the Department that there were no minerals on the land. The report was ordered to lie on the table.