THE LAND BILL.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LV, Issue 129, 18 October 1912, Page 8

THE LAND BILL.

TJJii DEBATE CONTINUED, By Telegraph.—Press Association. Wellington, Last Night. On the House resuming at 2.30 p.m. Mr. Ngata resumed the debate on the Land Bill. He submitted that the Prime Minister's proposal ill 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 J; Maoris changing their minds were that j they had had time to consider the pro-'' posals. He thought the Prime Minister c rash in introducing his proposals as new, * and over-sanguine in supposing that they would settle the native land question.. 1 He suggested that the Prime Minister ' should leave the matter over until next 1 session, and let his Native Minister in- ] vestigate and find out what the native# desire. ' " Dr. Pomare. disagreed with the last 1 speaker, so far as his references to tht 1 Bill and the Prime Minister were con- 5 ; eerned. In ISO 1 there were over ten I million acres of native lands left. Uf ' to 1911 the Government had purchase® 3,192,399 acres at an.average price of > tis 4d per acre. The total area of land* purchased from the pakehas by the Stato was 1,2!)G,942 at £4 lis 8d per acre. Ob the total of 508,095 acres sold, the ns* tives lost over a million sterling. Hp, held that the Government had not onlj robbed the Maoris, but had also robbed the settlers who took the land. Man) of these people were now praying for re missions of rents. Dr. Te Kangihiroa stated he had received a letter from chiefs who were re prcsentative of (he native race of bottv Islands, asking that clause 27 should bo withdrawn from the Bill. 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 foi the gum lands, when the lands were brought under fruit cultivation. The House then adjourned, resuming at 7.30 p.m. Mr. Forbes, continuing the debate on the Land Bill, said that he had found nothing on the Bill to satisfy the statements that the pr6pos'als 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. He predicted that Mr. Massey's proposals would drive still more people from the country into the towns. . 1 Mr. Pearee contended that the Liberal land policy had been a complete failure. The over-populated state of boroughs and the scarcity of population in the country showed that the cry for the freehold for the past twenty years nad a great deal to do with the influx of population into towns. He contended that the cry of reaggregation wa» * bogey. He 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 were in the 1910 Bill. He asked why the Prime 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 favored the perpetual lease, with revaluation every 21 or 33 years. He wanted to see the Conservative policy in action; and W'hen 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 last, he said, was full of settlement of the land. It would do more for landless men than any of its predecessors, and would prevent aggregation. Mr. Isitt proclaimed himself a leaseholder, and said that when the cantabout "sentiment" of the freehold ivvas tested with fact it evaporated. The Bill made no provision for settlement of any kind. The Prime Minister proposed to* open up only remote lands, which would involve the country in huge expenditure for roads and bridges, and yet the party said that they were not going jn for large expenditure or borrowing. If the Government did not break up estates the people would get a Government who would. Mr. Brown complained that the Bill would not in any way have the effect oi breaking up large Hawke's- Bay estates. Mr. Wilkinson, in his maiden speech, said that lie believed the time would come 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. Veitcli said he stood up for the principle of the leasehold, if he stood alone. It was sound in principle, but had been damaged because of bad administration. He undertook to do this: to, support freehold if it was made applicable to every class of land in Sew Zea- f 1 land (except endowment lands), public 1 and private. If that were done the pro- 1 inoters could claim to be serious. ] Mr. McCallum said that lie would not ( support any Land Bill until it dealt with large landowners. | 1 i Mr. Hindmarsli considered that Mr. 1 *Massey was utterly incompetent to deal - with this great land question. The purchase of estates in I-lawke's Bay and i Wailiau showed that the Prime Minister I was not fit to be in charge of this matter. j The debatv was adjourned, and the 1 . House rose at 1.20 a.m.