LAND BILL DISCUSSION.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXX, Issue 8551, 9 October 1907, Page 5

LAND BILL DISCUSSION.

(From Our Parliamentary Correspondent.) WELLINGTON, Tuesday. When, at 3.30 o'clock on Saturday morning last, the debate on the Land Laws Amendment Bill terminated, there was but a scanty attendance of 1 members in the House of Representatives, and the ringing of tne division bell only succeeded in bringing together 47 out of the total of 80 members. The fact was that the House was tired of discussing the principle of the measure, and those opposed to it knew that nothing they could do or say would stop the second reading. That being so, they made a virtue of necessity and did not prolong the debate to an unreasonable length. The whole thing had been threshed out long before the second reading of the Bill was proposed, and it was generally recognised that the real fight would have to take the form of guerilla warfare when the measure was in Committee of the Whole House. It is a pity that this fact is not oftener recognised in important Government measures when there is no nope of killing them at the second reading stage. It would save much time, worry, and expense, but so long as Hansard exists members will be encouraged to make long and vain speeches upon almost every policy Bill brought forward. There was little that was new in the discussion that was of importance, or little of importance that was new, for the simple reason that almost everything that could be said hadbeen said over and over again; but Mr A. W. Hogg managed to score a point, not because it was new, but because it was of a sensible and practical character. He suggested that, whatever the, general result of the controversy Freehold v. Leasehold, it would be to the interest of the Dominion to grant the freehold of small areas to suitable_ t settlers, so long as precautions were taken to prevevt these small areas being disposed of for the purpose of amalgamation, with other areas, and thus enable capitalists to acquire big holdings. Mr McNab, in his reply at the close of the debate, admitted the value of Mr Hogg's suggestion, and expressed the opinion that its adoption would in future jears play a large and important part in the land legislation of this country. Mr Hogg's idea was to give the freehold of areas of, say, 640 acres of firs.t clasn lar.d, 2,000 acres second-class land, and 5,000 acres third-class land, and Mr McNab stated that if they could dispose of areas of that kind ar.d p:n the limitation of area to the title, and carry cut the inte ition of the Legislature with regard to subsequent transfer, so that the land could not be gathered together in after years to make the nuclei s of large estates, it would enormously modify the views currtnt in the House and country in regarJ to the necessity of having sucn a large area of leasehold property in to- prevent the aggregation of lar.ds in the future. The Minister further saio he believed thi.t suoh a proposal would bring all the elements holding different views on the land question on to much more common grounds Mian they were at present. "