PARLIAMENT.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXVII, Issue 37, 14 October 1913, Page 7

PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

THE STONEWALL LIFTED,

COMPROMISE ARRIVED AT

IPkr Press Association.]

Wellington, October 13

When the House resumed at 2.30 iu committee on the Land Bill, Mr Massey said that it had been his original intention to use Monday sittings for the passage of local Bills, but as there had been obstruction' to the Land Bill, he proposed to go on with the measure for the present. He intended to give another day for the consideration of local Bills. I Sir J. G. ‘Ward asked tlie Prime Minister how far he intended going at j that sitting with the Bill. One Minister had declared that the Bill was going to be put through at one sitting |lf that was the position, ne 1 sa.cl, the ['Opposition would strenuously object. I Their opposition had not been to the ' Bill, but to clause 25, which had been j ruled out by the Speaker. So far as the Opposition'was concerned, they had iachieved the object they had in view. !Ho asked if the Prime Minister in--1 tended to put the Bill through at that sitting. He wanted to publicly I state that such a course would be unreasonable, and that the Opposition was not prepared to agree*; There ;\Vas only One alternative. He did not want to adopt that. It was the' easiest tiling in the world to keep the Bill going for a month, but again they did not want to do that. A reasonable thing to do was to fix a time for rising. He suggested going op with the Bill till midnight and then rising.

Mr Massey proceeded to review the proceedings of the previous sittings and to show that the'request of the Opposition to adjourn a,t 5 a.in. on Saturday* morning was unreasonable. He was, however, prepared to meet the Oppsition. Ho suggested going on with the Bill till 6;30 p.m. If reasonable progress was made he would thqn intimate what course ho was prepared to adopt. On this understanding, the stonewall was lifted, Mr T. K. Sidey proceeding to discuss clause 25. The debate was carried on chiefly by the Labor Party, leaseholders and mining representatives,, the later objecting to the freehold being given in mining districts, and especially to preferential treatment being given to the Hauraki district. . ■

After twenty-two hours discussion, a division was taken on the clause at 5.20, when the voting was Ayes 34, Noes 25. i- , , , , ,

The committee t'hen passed on to consideration of clause 2(x, jirovidipg for the fee simpife'of L.LP. and grazing The 'following was the division list oil clause 25 of-4he- Land" Bill-: -Ayes (34), Messrs Allen, Anderson, Bollard (2), Bradney, Buick, Campbell, Coates, Dickson, Escott, Fisher, Fraser, Guthrie, Harris, Herdman, Herries, nine, Lee, Mander, Massey, Nosworthy, Okey, Pomare, Reed, Rhodes (2), Scott, F. H. Smith, Statham, Sykes, GM. Tdiomsdrf, yri Wilkifis6ll. Wilsdh 'Mid Young. Noes' (26); 'Buddo, Clark' ColVih, 1 1 Craigid, I '''Dickie, Ell, forbefc,’ GiUvfef, Hiihah', ’' ■' Hindmarsh, Laurdhsflh, MacDonald, Millar, A. K. Newman, Parata, Paynoj Poland; Robertson,' Seddon, Sidey, Ward, Webb, Wilford'and Witty. ’ Pairs—Ayes: Pearcef Hunter, Bell and Buchanan; Noes—Railgihiroa, Brown, McCallum, Myers. The House in committee resumed at 7.30.

Mr G. Witty moved an amendment to clause 26, to provide that the .freehold shall not apply to privately-own-ed lands. j, ■ r Mr Massey said that the amendment was not relevant as the Bill only dealt with Crown lands.

After some discussion as to whether or not the amendment was relevant, the chairman ruled that it was not germain to the clause. Mr Witty thereupon moved to take the Speaker’s ruling on the point. Mr Speaker ruled that the amendment was relevant to the clause, hut probably could be moved at the end of the Bill.

The committee then resumed. At 8 o’clock Mr J. A. Hanan called for a division on that part of clause 26 dealing with small grazing runs,. This resulted in 40 votes to 18 in favor of the portion of being retained.

In reply to an objection by Mr J. Robertson that under the Bill owners would be able to aggregate holdings, Mr Massey declared that, a person wishing to acquire Crown lands would have .to satisfy a competent tribunal that such acquisition' would not be prejudicial to the public interests. If this Act did not prove satisfactory ho would strengthen it. He hoped to bring down another Land Bill next year. Mr Massey refused a suggestion by Mr J. A. Hanan to insert a provision against owners of the fee-simple sub-letting. He did. not want to spoil the Bill.

Replying to Mr O. ‘Forbes Mr Massey intimated that having drafted a new clause providing fop the re-classi-fication of Crown land, he again reminded members that next session he would bring down a consolidating and j amending Land Bill, and if they knew of any evils or hardships existing under present conditions he hoped they would bring forward amendments in order to effect a remedy. Mr J. Webb and Mr A. H. Hindvre.rrh voiced their strong objections to the freehold clause, both members submitting that the question should be referred to the country. I The House divided on the clause, voting being 36 votes to 21. The clause with minor amendments was then passed. _ i Mr Massey agreed to increase the frontages for residential sections in

urban and suburban areas from 33 feet to 10 feet.

A further amendment was passed, providing that aliens shall be allowed to acquire land in New Zealand where they are subjects to any treaties between their own countries and Britain.

The proposal as to the extension of time for the purchase ox Crown or settlement land upon deferred paymente from 9 to 19 years was passed without opposition.

The clause dealing with the sale ol settlement land by auction was amended to read that the deposit money' shall be 5 per cent., and the balance •at the same rate per annum. The clause'passed, progress was reported, and the House rose at midnight.