PARLIAMENT.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXIV, Issue 47, 18 October 1912, Page 3

PARLIAMENT.

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 17, 1912. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. (Per Press Association.* Wellington, October 17. , The Legislative Council met at 2.110. The Hauraki Plains Amendment Bill passed. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL BILL. Mr Bell moved the second reading of the Legislative Council Bill, limiting appointments to the Council to three years. He said that the Council and the House had both agreed that a change should take place from nomination to election. The method itself was immaterial, and the majority in the House for the change had been decisive. Was it not, therefore, .'ho asked, the duty of the Council, ! equally with the Government and the I House, to prepare for the position | which would ariseP In 1914 sixteen members of the Council would havi | their terms ended, leaving only lifted j members appointed for seven years and seven life members. It would be necessary to provide that in the last session of Parliament there should he a chamber capable of discharging its duties, and this Bill was to prepare for the position that would arise. There was nothing behind the measure: no hidden intention.

Mr Wigram agreed that it was incumbent upon the Council to prepare for the position arising in the future. He indicated that he would move in committee to strike out tno words limiting the appointment to three years and so leave it to be understood that, if the elective Hill were not passed, they should be reappointed, and if it

did pass they would have a good chance of election by the people. He would also move that this Act continue until the expiry of the term of the present Parliament, when it shall be deemed to bo repealed. Messrs Carncross and Loughnan said they would vote against the Bill. Mr Paul objected to the three years’ tenure. He would vote for the Bill, hut there should he some way of making it expire automatically when the elective system was adopted. Mr Samuel upheld the nominee system. How could they vote for the present Bill when they had shelved the former Bill on the subject, because they considered that legislation should be delayed for a year, to permit the public to be consulted? The debate was adjourned, and the Council then rose. In the evening the Council passed all the stages of a number of local Bills sent forward from the House and then adjourned. THE LAND BILL. THE DEBATE CONTINUED.

On the House resuming at 2.30 p.m. Mr Ngata resumed the debate on the Land Bill. Ho submitted that the

Prime Minister’s proposal in connection with native lands was neither now nor revolutionary. He proceeded to show, from the steps taken in the past, that the natives did not desire to oiler their lands. He had, he said, in his possession a petition from native chiefs, praying that the proposals of Mr Massey’s Bill relating to them be not proceeded with. He went on to say that the reasons for the Maoris changing their minds were that they had had time to consider the proposals. He thought the Prime Minister rash in introducing his proposals as new and over-sanguine in supposing that they would settle the native land question. Ho suggested that the Prime Minister should leave the matter over until next session, and let his Native Minister investigate and liud out what the natives desire.

Dr. Pomare disagreed with the last speaker, so far as his references to the Bill and the Prime Minister were concerned. In 1891 there were over ten million acres of native lands left. Up to 1911 the Government had purchased 3,192,399 acres at an average price of 6s 4d per acre. The total area of lands purchased from the pakchas by the State was 1,296,912 at £1 11s 8d per acre. On the total of 568,095 acres sold, the natives' lost over a million sterling. He held that the Government had not only robbed the Maoris, but had also robbed the settlors who took the land. Many ot these people were now praying for remissions of rents.

])r. Te Rangihiroa stated lie had received a. letter from chiefs who were representative of the native race of both Islands, asking that clause 27 should be withdrawn Mr Buddo said that Mr’ Massey’s native land policy was 27 years old, and would have as little result as the others had. Mr Harris predicted a big future for the gum lands when the lands were brought under fruit cultivation. The House then adjourned, resuming at 7.150 p.m. Mr Forbes, continuing the debate on the Land Bill, said that ho had found nothing on the Bill to satisfy the statements that the proposals would prevent our young men leaving the country. He was afraid that the Bill would fall far short of the paragraph in the Budget dealing with the bursting up of big estates. It seemed only to conserve the interests of the large land-owners, and did not pay any attention to the tenants. He would move in committee that if more than one tender was received, land shall be balloted for. Ho predicted that Mr Massey’s proposals would drive still more people from the country into the towns.

Mr Pcarco contended that the Liberal laud policy had been a complete failure.

The over-populated state of boroughs and the scarcity of population in tin country showed that the cry for the freehold for the past twenty years had a great deal to do with the influx oi population into towns. Ho contondod that the cry of reaggregation was a bogey. Ho maintained that Hawke’s Bay was not suitable for small dairy farms, from a climatic standpoint. That was the reason the country was Held in large areas for sheep. Mr Russell said that a large portion of the Bill was taken from Sir Joseph Ward’s proposals in 1910. The longer the Government sat on the Treasury Benches the more they showed that

they were a collection of mediocrities unable to formulate a policy of their own. The freehold to Crown tenants and town planning wore in the 1910 Bill. He asked why the Prinfo Minister had not given the freehold to the whole of the Crown tenants as he had promised, instead of only to ordinary Crown tenants. As to the native land policy, Mr Ngata had pulverised the Prime Minister. He favoured the perpetual lease, with re-

valuation every 21 or 33 years. He wanted to sec the Conservative policy in action; and when people saw it they would say: “Wipe those people out and put back the Liberals.” Mr Anderson approved of the Bill, which, from the first clause to the hist, lie said, was full of settlement of tinland. It would do more for landless . men than any of its predecessors, and ; would prevent aggregation. Mr I sitt proclaimed himself a leaso- - holder, and said that when the cant > about “sentiment” of the freehold was tested with fact it evaporated. The - Bill made no provision for settlement . of any kind. The Prime Minister pro- . posed' to open up only remote lands i which would involve the country ii s huge expenditure for roads am s bridges, and yet the party said tha

they wore not going in for large expenditure or borrowing. If the. Government did not break up estates

the people would got a Government who would. Mr Brown complained that the Bill would not iu any way have the effect of 'breaking up large Hawke’s Bay estates. Mr Wilkinson, in his maiden speech, said that he believed the time would como when more drastic measures would have to be taken with big estates, whether the owners liked it or not. The workers should be encouraged to become land owners. Mr Veitch said he stood up for the principle of the leasehold, if he stood alone. It was sound in principle, bul had been damaged because of bad administration. He undertook to do tills: to support freehold if it tvas made applicable to every class of land in New Zealand (except endowment lands), public and private. If that were done the promoters could claim to be serious. Mr McCallum said that he would not support any Land Bill until it dealt with large landowners. Mr Hindmarsh considered that Mr Massey was utterly incompetent to deal with this groat land question. The purchase of estates in Hawke’s Bay and Waihau showed that the l*i ■ime Minister wa< not fit to bo in charge of this matter. The debate was adjourned, and the House rose at 1.20 a.m.