LAND FOR SETTLEMENT BILL

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2680, 9 December 1909, Page 3

LAND FOR SETTLEMENT BILL

DEBATE ON SECOND READING

In moving the second reading of the "Land for Settlement Administration Bill, the Prime Minister said that no change in the vital principles of "oh© lands for settlement system was involved in it. The only alterations -were in ; the direction of more efficiently carrying out the purpose for which the principal Act was designed. There were two distinct portions of the Bill, the first dealing with methods of raising and investing money, and the .manner in which the accounts should be. kept, and the second involving minor changes in land administration and the conditions . under which estates acquired for settlement should be dealt with. All lands acquired for settlement under the Lands tor Settlement Act were to be vested in -the Superintendent, of the State • Advances Department. The Bill would not alter the administration or occupation provided for by the Lands for Settlement Act of 1908 in any way. Provisions were made forth e transfer of liabilities regarding loans already raised from the Government th tho Superintendent of the Advances Department. Whatever fblie amount was it would cease to form part of the public debt from the coming into effect of this measure. The whole of the money, raised would be guaranteed by the State. „ Provision was made, for borrowing £500.000 for the acquirement of Native Lands. The area of holdings of ; first-class land , had been reduced from 1000 to 400 acres ; of secondclass. land, from ”2000 to 1000 acres; and third-class land, from 5000 to 2500 acrcsr Formerly, preference without competition , was given to employees who had.been deprived of their employment through, the acquisition of the estate. When'the Bill was before the Lands Committee that clause had been deleted so that employees would have to take their chance the same as other applicants. (Hear, hears.) Provision was made for the acquisition of land near to towns, where the requirements of town workers would be met: In some instances, owners had had the value of their estates raised because they were in fear of the Government acquiring them. The Bill provided a means to secure a reduction of such valuations. —Mr. Massey’s Views.— Mr. Massey-thought that the Bill was worthy of a. more exhaustive outline than had been given. It contemplated the passing of the State Guaranteed Loans Advances Bill, which was at the present time hung up. The Bill did not propose to seriously interfere with tho principle of the Lands for Settlement system. In his opinion the serious defect of that system was neglect to cater for those who wanted email holdings. He undersood from a speech delivered earlier in the day— Mr. Millar: You are referring to a past debate. Mr. Massey: Evidently your conscience is not at rest. Mr. Millar: It is perfectly easy. Mr. Massey stated that he understood from the speech in question that it was intended to put an end to the land for settlement system, because ,it was held to be too costly; too expensive. Mr. Ell: A point of order. Mr. Massey: You did not stop me soon enough, for I have said all I wanted to just now. The Speaker: You must not refer to a past debate. Mr. Massey: It is quite evident that the speech of which the hon. gentleman is thinking has caused consternation in the Government camp. 1 would advise Ministers to reconcile their differences in the Cabinet room— Mr. Millar: There is no conflict. Mr. Massey: You say no oonflict, but I heard one of the Ministers say — The Speaker: You are out of order now. Mr. Massey went on to say that he believed thoroughly in the land for settlement scheme, and he would like to improve on it by giving settlers the option of the freehold at the price it cost the country. They had not had, this year, the usual information placed before the House, as to operations undel* the Land for Settlements Act. It was impossible to obtain any details regarding the working of any particular estate. The Bill' proposed to reduce very considerably the area which a man whoso land was taken should retain, and where there was no homestead it was proposed he should retain nothing. He had-: always thought that the amount that might be retained should be dependent on the size of a man’s family, and he would move later to amend the Bill in this direction. Clause 24, providing that land might ho ta,ken compulsorily for homes and homefarm s for workers, seemed to him unnecessary and unfair. It had never been' in the past, to take land compulsorily for workers’ homes. Asftiie clause stood ; it would apnly: practically:,to 'the whole* Dominion. It meant that any farmer’s land could be taken' from him witliftthe' exemption, of ten' acres: The Government had more land • for workers’ dwellings than- it knew'Awliat to'do with-./ Nothing had, been done- with the Nai Nai property of 150 acres, purchased near Wellington for this parpose. and at Auckland the Government had - more land for workers’ dwellings than it could use in 25 years, He wanted it made perfectly ‘clear that the subsidiary roll would not be discontinued. He believed in the pronosal to disqualify a successful: aplicant-who did not hold on to his land from going to further ballots. If he disposed of his section within five years he should be disqualified from further ballots.. There had been too much speculation in this connection. When the Bill was in Committee ho would have more to say. —Prime Minister in - Reply.— The Prime Minister, in replying, S said,.he had been,surprised to hear Mr Ttogg --politically cursing the workers (Mr. Hogg: Oh, i no 1) and blessing the farmer®. It was to him very gratifying and a great relief to find Mr. Hogg making thip division. • Land'had never been taken compulsorily near any-of the chief centres in the past, nor had. it once been taken from farmers subject to tho limitations of the existing Land for Settlement- Act. He had no objection to taking out the word ‘ compulsory.” Tho clause only applied to boroughs and town districts the provision that had previously extended to the cities. Ho had the most absolute and supremo contempt for statements that had been made with the object of making political capital out of the clause. The Government would have had ample 'lands offered voluntarily foe workers’ dwellings around Masterton ' if tho clause were passed. Mr. Massey: Then why do you. want a compulsory clause ? , . ; Tlie Prime Minister said that a number of members would not realise what was proposed. The reduction of areas was carried further by this Bill than had ever been done before. —An Expensive System.— Altogether 4752 tenants,, including those at Cheviot', had been put on ,1,129,224 acres of land at 'a cost of

ah- ; average : cost of - £1209 per neadr for those put on the land. Some members would not recognise that though the Government had been acquiring estates all along and was negotiating for them still, in recent years, and during the last year or two particularly, land had reached such a high price that it was not one in 20, 30, or 40 estates that the Government hud any chance of purchasing at anything like, the price demanded. To put 13,000 settlers on the land, as had been suggested, Would dost ovbr 20 million pounds, all told. Was it supposed that the Government could go on spending money for this purpose at tlie rate 11bud been doing, or at the rate that was, required to put 13,000 people on the land at a cost of -20 millions, and at tlie same time carry on its railway and other works ? •It was impossible to continue the system of expenditure that had been followed for the acquirement of land for settlement, while making other required provisions for the development of the country. Mr. Allen had asked why the Government was making provision in this Bill for an expenditure up to one million if it did not intend to go on with , the Land for Settlement policy. The Government was- going on with that oolicy. It had shaped the course for land settlement with a view to relieving so far as possible, it® going on tlie money market. If the Government obtained .one million it would not go to the London money market or elsewhere for another million. The money would be invested in repurchases of land. This was one. of the objects of the whole of the series of proposals on the Land question that had been placed before the House. It was a great mistake to believe that the: Government could go on for an unlimited period of years at the rate of spending over five million pounds to put 4700 settlers on the land. An attorn ut Avas therefore being made to meet- the position in. a rational and practical way. The whole amount invested in railways, open and not opened, was 29i million, with a population of one million. Before 20 millions could be spent on land settlement, it was necessary te get that 20 millions. —Curtailment of Borrowing.— The return of land settlement asked for by Mr. Massey had been abolished „tbree years ago, because the particulars could not be accurately given. It was no use acquiring land for workers near the towns if they could not get the money to put a home on it. This could now be got from the Advances to Workers Department, and authority was being asked to provide a larger sum for this purpose. . Air. Massey: You don’t intend to lend on these classes of land ? The Prime Minister: "Why not? Mr. Massey: There is no provision to this effect in the* State Guaranteed Advances Bill. Tlie Prime Minister said that there was provision in one of the Bills to enable moneys obtained in that way to be used to enable settlors to get homes. There was no proposal to “pledge the freehold estate” of the colony* and the fullest publicity would be given to the financial operations under the Bill. It- should be the aim .of the Government not to go to the London money market for any more money than was essential. v Owing to the recent increase in the cost of land it was necessary to reduce the areas purchased and disposed of to settlers. Without a change of system it- would not be possible to carry on land settlement at anything like the expenditure of the last few years on account of the monetary obligations it involved. In reply to an interjection the Prime Minister repeated that be had no objection to leaving out the word “compulsory” in Clause 24.