THE LAND BILL

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXI, Issue 10714, 18 October 1912, Page 5

THE LAND BILL

DEBATED IN THE HOUSE. (By Telegraph—'Fress A isnnati&h.) | , WELLINGTON, Last Night.- : In the' House of Representative#. ! this afternoon, Mr A. T. Ngata reI sumed the debate on the Land Bill* 'He submitted that the Prime Minister's proposal in connection with Natve lands was neither new nor revolutionary. ,He proceeded show from steps taken in the past that the Natives did not desire to offer their lands. He had, he said, in his possession a petition from Native chiefs" praying .that the proposals in Mr Massey's Bill relating to them he not proceeded with. He went on to- . say that the reason for the Maoris changing their minds was that they had had time to consider the propos- ; als. He thought the Premier was rasli in introducing his proposals as new,, and over-sanguine in supposing; that they would settle the Native.land question. He suggested that . tho Premier should leave the matter over until next session;-and let his Native: Minister investigate and find 'out what" the natives desired. ' The Hon Dr Pomare disagreed; with th© last speaker so far as his references to tho Bill and tho .Premier , were concerned; In 1891 there were\ over ton million acres of native'lands left Up to 1911 the Government hid purchased 8,192,399 acres at an average price of 6s 4d per acre. The total area of lands purchased from pakehas by the State was 1,296,942 at £4 lis 8d per acre. On a total, of < 568,095 acres sold, the natives had lost" over a million sterling.' He held: that the Government had not. only robbed" the Maoris, but had also robbed the settlers -who took the lan£. Many of these people were nov ing for remissions of _ rents. - ; Mr Te Rangihiroa stated th •: ' " <]jad received a letter from chief;- *. ? were representative of the T«\ ~ .v----race ;of both islands, asking T-«vi clause 27 should be withdrawr the Bill; . , ,;Mr ; D. Bljddo said Mr Massey j lh-, r .tive land policy was twenty-' years old,. aiid' would have as " 'result as the others had. , v , 1 1 Mr Harm predicted a big ;f i-V:-j•; fop'the gum lands when , the cultK^v-»Cv ' Mjr* Forbes said lie had found n. .liing in the Bill to justify the " ments that the proposals woul-i rrcvent our young men from leavir. 5 -i----country) Ho was. afraid .•tho--*vJLh'.l Wild fall far; short'ofutH9 sam jr h in the Budget dealing with the baitt-. ing Up of'big estates. It seemwl axirly to conserve the interests of , iarge land-owners, and did not pay any attention to the tenants. He v«->uld • move in Committee that if mor*> tiian onei tender is received the land "-'sail be ballotted for. He predicted that Mr Massey's, proposals would drive 1 still more people from the country into the towns. - - Mr Pearce contended.that the Liberal land policy had been a complete failure. Tho over-populated state of boroughs, and the scarcity of population in the country, showed that the cry for the. freehold 1 - for the past twenty years had had a great deal to do with the influx of population into the towns. He contended ! that the cry of re-aggregation was p. •; [ bogey. He maintained that Hajvke's: | : Bay was not'suitable for small dairy j farmers, from a climatic standpoint. . That was the reason the country was '. i held in large areas for sheep. j ]&• G. W. RusseH said a large portion of the Bill was taken from Sir Joseph ,Ward's proposal in 1910.'The longer the (Government sat on the ; Treasury benches, the more: they showed they were a- collection of mediocrities., unable. to formulate a ■ pol- • :ioy of their own. > The 1 reehold .'to t-enantsu and town-planning - were in the 1910 Bill. 'He asked why the' Preniieivljad^notvgiv.ei^. ; t}j;ev hold to the whole of the Crown tenants, as he promised, instead of only to; ordinary Crown tenants., As the Native land policy, Mr ,Ngata had. pulverised tlie^Premier. He favourfed the perpetual lease, with a re-va-luation every 21 or 33 years. He Wanted to see the Conservative policy in action- and when the, people saw it, they would say, "wipeCthoge" people out, and put back the Liberals." ' ' :• , : ;'v ' Mr • Anderson approved of tlie ' Bill, which from the first clause to the last was full of. the settlement of the land. It. would, do more for. the landless than Any of its . predecessors, 1 and would prevent aggregation. He advocated the roading of land before settlers were put upon it. Mr Isitt proclaimed himself a ' leaseholder, and said that when the . cant about the sentiment of freehold was tested with fact, it evaporated.. The Bill mode no provision for settlement of any kind. The Premier pro-/' posed ,to open up only > remote lands, which wou*d ,in.* o!\e the cou itry i»t a huge expenditure for ioad-3 and bridges, and yet the party said they were not going in for large expenditure or borrowing. If the Government did' not break, up the estates, the people would get a Government who would. ,