THE LAND QUESTION.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXI, Issue 607, 9 December 1909, Page 3

THE LAND QUESTION.

In the'House on Monday afternoon Mr R. A. Wright, Wellington South, resumed the interrupted debate on the report of the Committee on the Land Laws Amendment Bill, which the Chairman moved should be laid on the table, and Mr Berries moved as an amendment that the minutes of the proceedings of the Committee be laid on the table. Mr Wright said that he was unable from the Premier’s speech to say whether Sir Joseph Ward was a leaseholder or a freeholder. The policy ot the administration on the land question meant the downfall of the patty. The Government’s policy was purely an opportunist one based on the retention of office at any price. Mr T. E. Taylor (Christchurch North) said'that rural lauds had increased enormously in value, not only as the results of owners’ efforts but as a result of the efforts of the labourers of the community. Referring to Mr T. McKenzie’s position iu the Cabinet, he said that that Minister had driven the wedge into the Liberal party at Rangitikei. What authority had Mr McKenzie, he asked, to speak for the Cabinet in offering the freehold and thus giving the Liberal policy away. Perhaps the time would come when the national endowments would be given away—not to save the Liberal Party but to preserve the Cabinet. This Land Bill—this abortion—this thing without shape or form, had, said Mr Taylor, been conceived by the Government in secret, and when it came tottering into the House members were supposed to accept it without question.

Mr D. H. Guthrie (Oroua), speaking of his attitude in Committee, said he was proud of having the freehold clauses retained. There were 53 freeholders in the House, which was a clear indication that the majority of the electors demanded tbe freehold, the Government had only carried out its declared.policy, which was to find out wliat the people want -and give it to them. The Hon. J. A. Millar said he was amused at the charges made against him of abandoning his principles. These had not changed. There was nothing in the Bill to abolish the leasehold tenure, and it appeared to him that the time of the House was being wasted for the sake of 4,417 land /or settlement tenants. Speaking for himself he was quite prepared to go to the country next wpek. The sooner they went to the country and got the matter settled the better.

The debate whs adjourned until Tuesday afternoon and the House rose.

In the House in the evening the Shipping and Seamens Bill was put through the final stages. The Premier moved the second reading of the Land for Settlements Administration Bill to amend the law relating to the acquisition and administration ol lands for settlement. He explained at length the principal clauses of the Bill as they relate to finance, lands administration, limitation of areas, modification of the Workers’ Dwellings Act and alterations in valuation rolls. The Bill, he pointed out, inter alia, repealed section 52 of the principal Act, and provided that successful applicants in ballots under the Act who dispose of their laud, shall be disqualified from taking part in further ballots for five years, and successful applicants for rural lands would be required to reside continuously on allotments for ten years. MR TAYLOR SPEAKS HIS MIND. When the report of the Committee on the Land Laws Amendment Bill was brought down in the House this week it recommended that the Bill be allowed to proceed with amendments attached. Mr Taylor (Christchurch) remarked that if, as bad been said, the Bill had been shorn of all its freehold clauses in Committee things had come to a pretty pass. The Liberal Party was practically a coalition party, and its policy was only maintained by a combination of votes on both sides. Mr Taylor proceeded to denounce the filching away of private members’ rights, and the reticence on the land question shown by the Premier. Members were being treated with absolute contempt with regard to the contemplated legislation, .and the personnel of the Cabinet. Ten days ago only tfi? Almighty and. the' Premier knew’what the land policy was. The Dominion should at least have,two months to understand the position. The men who were howling for freehold were influenced by selfishness begotten of well doing founded on the i State,.and leasehold was the only system under which a poor man could become a farmer. The whole of the Liberal principles on the land question, which were absolutely sound, were being sacrificed to exigencies of party warfare. He hoped the Bill would meet .with such a protest from the House and country that the Government would be forced to give the people six months to consider it.

Sir Joseph Ward, speaking later said it was extraordinary that leaseholders were ready to grasp at any straw in order to prove sinister designs against the Government. He denied the Opposition’s statement that be drove his followers, aud asserted that every measure introduced by the Government had been before the people and every opportunity, given to discuss it. The Premier, continuing, asked how many leaseholders

recognised the position of the land tenure. Since the last 30 years it had been one of endeavouring to hold On to a portion of Crown lands. The critics of the Government proposals did not realise that the position of the great majority of leaseholders on Crown lauds had turned right round in favour of freehold, though they could never have got on the land but for the leasehold system financed by the State. The will of the majority of the people must prevail. Leaseholders lost sight of the fact that under the Laud Bill freehold was only granted under conditions that conserved the right of the Slate to share in the increased value of lands. GOVERNMENT UNDECIDED ON LAND BILEThere is considerable doubt as to whether the Land BUI will come up lor discussion during the present session, which has now only a further fortnight to run. It is evident from what can be gathered that the Government is undecided whether to allow the Bill to rest at the stage that it has now attained or whether to allow it to come up for a second reading debate before shelving it until next year.