PARLIAMENT.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXVII, Issue 29, 4 October 1913, Page 2

PARLIAMENT.

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 3.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

Wellington, October 3

Tho House met at 2.30,

MONDAY BUSINESS. The Prim* Minister moved, in accordance vitli notice, that on and after the 6th inst., the House meet on .Mondays at 7.30 for the transaction of Government business. The motion gave rise to a lengthy debate, in which the southern members protested against the proposal as being unfair to them, while the Opposition-general-ly contended that until the Government declared what measures it proposed to proceed with it was untaii to take from members the time necessary for recuperation after a heavy week’s work.

Mr Massey, in reply, quoted returns to show that he was not taking Monday at an earlier date than in past years. He accused the South Island members of political laziness, and unwillingness to do their duty to their constituents. Concerning the business of the session, he pointed aut that 22 Bills had been passed and vent to the Legislative Council, 4 were in the third reading, 7 were before select committees, 14 were in the second reading stage,., and the Governnent intended to take up Mr Hindnarsh’s Distress Limitation Bill.

Mr Isitt: If you have done so much, 'low have we obstructed you? Utr Massey: We liave put these treasures through in spite of the oh■•traction of the honorable gentlemen opposite. So far as the termination of die session was concerned', all he could my was that hb intended to stay yhere ho was pntil the business of the louse was completed. A division was called for, when the notion was carried by 38 votes to 28. THE DEFAMATION BILL. The Defamation Bill was, on the notion of'Mr A. L. Herdman, read a iccond time pro forma. Ho proposed o send it to the Statutes Revision Committee, to which Sir Joseph Ward objected. THE LAND BILL. When the House resumed at 7.30 urn. Mr Masspy moved the second ending of the Land Bill. The vas another instalment of the freehold >olicy of the Government. It was hoof that Parliament was willing to ■ecqgnise the good work done by the iioneers of the, country) The success if the, settler depended upon , two, hihgs—security of tenure and good narkets fpr 7 That) wfs what die Government aimed at. A great i 1 leal pf ; nonsense ha,d been talked ibout the | Bill of, laet .year,; to; the iffect ( that they t were giving n\vay die rights of the people, ; but fjhe Stp,to iever parted with’the ownership of I die land. What it did was to part only vith the fee simple. It was the duty if a man who owned land in this country to bring that land into the highest cultivation. If he did not do that io should be made to part with that and. If producers were to bo encouraged the Government must put iberai ■ ftfcftf 1 latfl hit J md Statute' Book, but they must not forget that is circumstanced changed so must lielPland laws. The Government did lot propose to interfere with the pubic good. In 'cases where a man was iggregatiug’ against the public wel-, ate/ provision was made lor interr erence by the Land Purchase Board, j aid the Minister who informed,, an j nvner that 'lie either must cut' up j ir hand his land over to the Board o: I die State will compulsorily acquire it I a nine cases out of ten. He boieved that the man himself would sub- I livide the land and make as much is he could out of it. He had express'd the opinion that in ten years there vould not he a large estate suitable 'or cutting up left in the country, | ■nd he held to’ that opinion. A new irnvision was made in the Bill proubiting companies from purchasing a lumber of runs. The principle was me-man-one-iun. In cases where •oral land was overvalued by the Board, it could be re-valued by the Valuer-General, and’ that value would le final. If found necessary to roiiime a grazing run, the licensee would ie compensated to the extent, of the easehold interests. A city man may :ake up a section of country land, but ieed not personally reside thereon, mt he must be represented on the sec-

don. He must make twice tlio mprovements imposed in tlie case >f compulsory personal residence. The 3ill still gave preference at ballots to narried men and unsuccessful appli■ants. The old law stipulated that purchasers of Grown ox 1 settlement and shall pay for their holdings ir ten payments. It had been foum that many settlers could not complete purchases in that time. It was now proposed to double the time. Provision was made that Crown lands without roads shall have all monies paid to the Crown which have accrued from the sale or letting of land expended on the making of roads for access to such lands. Provision was made for the purchase of the fee simple of settlement lands held under lease-in-perpetuity. The principle of xctuarial calculation was provided for. The Government had not the slightest intention of interefi*ing with education endowments.

Sir J. Ward said that he recognised that >yhen. Mr Massey came int< office the tenure of the land was settled on the freehold basis, and he recognised that fact, but in the Bill now before the House there no proposal which was going to help set tlement. There were several which would retard settlement. Mr E. Newman said that Sir J. Ward’s acceptance of the freehold tenure brought the two parties in the House closer than they had ever been before, because the difference be-

tween the freehold and leashold parties had been the principal lino of demarcation between them in the past. Mr W. D. McDonald complained of the want of courtesy on the part of the Government in not putting up a Minister to reply to the Leader of the Opposition As to the freehold tenure, he claimed that practically every Crown tenant except those on endowment or settlement lands had a right to acquire the freehold since i. 892, but there had been no great rush to get the freehold. He was a 1 freeholder himself, but he recognised that without the ieasehald the bulk of our settlement would have been impossible. Ho denounced the pro posal to remit the residential conditions. Compared with that result the aggregation proposals in the Bill were not worth the paper they were written on. The tenure of the future was to be a limited freehold assisted by optional leasehold. ‘ The debate was continued by Messrs Wilson, Isitt, and T. W. Rhodes. Mr Okey moved the adjournment of tixo debate and the House rose at 12.35.