THE LAND BILL

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXV, Issue 10713, 13 October 1913, Page 6

THE LAND BILL

AN OPPOSITION STONEWALL,

ALLEGED "DRIVING" TACTICS.

(By Telegraph—Press Association.) WELLINGTON,, Last Night-

After the telegraph, office closed on Friday night, the clause exempting, Crown tenants from residence was. p-ussed by 33 votes to 28. A clause put in at the request of the member for the Thames,, providing for the conversion of the Hauraki Plains leases into freehold,, was debated at great lengtjj. The Opposition took strong exception to the clause, and alleged that a member of the House owned; .2000 1 acres of the Hauraki land.. The Hon. W. H. Herries stated that the Government had no knowledge of. the substance of the allegation.

' Mr T. H. Rhodes (Thames)) said he owned about a thousand acres,, which he had secured at the l>allot some years ago.

Opposition members objected, to the driving tactics of the Government, and alleged that the»interest of the member for Thames in Hauraki created a position of grave'political impropriety.

Mr J. A. Millar raised the point that the amendment moved by Mr Rhodes was an appropriation of public monies, and could not be introduced by a private member. He moved to take the Speaker's ruling on the point. On the Speaker Mr Millar pointed out that he did not wish to see power given to the Committee that did not. belong to ft. The land in question' wis Crown land, and'' ths*{lf cfiwt i 'all rents, fees, etc.,. derived,from it ~mist be public revenue, and. should be brought in iby Go*to|PQr's message. „ •>.; ;.r

The Hflta. W_ F. Mr Millar was wrong in , h&j ; He assumed that land. The monies be handed over to the owner after tlief! land became private propqi^y,fore the clause wast not'appropriating public money.. .1 Mr G. W. Russell under the clause tltf«onspßp to be paid over to the owner were monies for something outsid^Efie'fee'simple. The only thing outside) was minerals,. and therefore the monies the owner was to-gfet'iWWd'-only be monies derivedotherwise would go Therefore, it was clear ihaArthe'fclause was 1 .an appropriation,.okroqe&ir./Mr J. A. Hanan the clause gave the nyjoras. • that otherwise would go to ;thfc> Crown, so that the appropriatiynjchtos&t was '.clear. .km,*-,: •

Mr Millar said ihjft, could be put in a Majesty the King a message to the per-, tain definite things'.. mittee go beyond those gjjogjsalf and attach conditions to them Wf¥£h weve not contemplated in the message"?jJ The Speaker said that before he coiuld give a decision he must ascertain whether the owners would be placed in a better position after receiving fees, royalties, etc. ? thaxji before so doing. .'T.'"'. The Premier admitted that "the word "royalties" should not Ife in the clause. In other respects the State ,merely acted as a receiver. Mr Russell asked what would happen to these monies if the subclause was not passed.

*Mr Poland said that without the amendment, the fees, etc., would go ,to the State. Under the clause, the monies would go to the owner. It was an appropriation clause. , The' Speaker said the evidence be-, fore him was exceedingly conflicting.' If it could be done, he would like to reserve his decision for further consideration. He had no doubt whatever that if fees, royalties, etc., were to be something, extra to the oiwner, and it appeared to him that they would be, then the clause was clearly an appropriation of public monies. He would, however, like time to look further into the point.

The House agreed to the Speaker deferring his decision. The discussion then took the turn that it was fufile to discuss' the clause, until the Speaker had given his ruling. As a result of certain remarks made by Mr Latirenson, Mr Massey said the charges made against Mr Rhodes were so serious that he .could not allow them to pass unnoticed. He asked Mr Laurenson whether he would lay on the table of the Houpe a letter he had received regarding the member for the Thames. The accusations "must he inquired into. Mr Laurenson agreed to lay on the table that portion of the letter he had read to the House. Mr Rhodes characterised the letter as mean and scurrilous. He hoped the whole matter would be probed to the bottom, and that the name of the "skunk" who wrote the letter.would come out.

After -the dinner adjournment, the Speaker said that Mr Rhodes' amendment would take away from,the Crown something it would otherwise have. He therefore ruled that it was an appropriation iclause, and could not he moved by a private member.

Replying to Sir Joseph Ward, Mr Massey said lie would bring down the substance of the amendment by Governor's message. He proposed, to incorporate it in the Bill. Mr Webb contended that the carrying of clause 25 would give away the heritage of the people. It would; rob the miners of their right©, and would enhance to an extraordinary degree the value of mining lands, to the absolute detriment of the min-

ers. If it becamo law, there would be ,a repetition of the Huntly, Rutfanga aud Blackball, towns. The land would be owned by one or two* people. After' considerable discussion onthe question of the waste of time,. Mr Hindmarsh rose and said he considered tliey would be justified in staying there fighting the clause until they forced a general election. As things shaped now, they would be parting with their national endowments next.

After the' supper adjournment, the Speaker was again called into the House to rule on a point as to whether Mr G. W. Russell had exhausted hia right to speak . The position was that the member for Avon had spoken four times during the debate on clause 25> but he contended that one of his speeches was on a question whether an amendment should stand part of the question. After a series of versions of a complicated position (all appearing to differ) ~the Speaker ruled that Mr Russell was riot entitled to further discuss tlie question.. From' that point till midnight, the proceedings continued oil familiar lines.

The Qhairmam left the chair at midnight, to resum©' it at 2.30 p.m. on Monday..