Evening Post. TUESDAY, OCTOBER 29, 1912. A CONSERVATIVE LAND LAW

Evening Post, Volume LXXXIV, Issue 104, 29 October 1912, Page 6

Evening Post. TUESDAY, OCTOBER 29, 1912. A CONSERVATIVE LAND LAW

Practically the whole of yesterday's sitting of the House of Representatives was devoted to the Land Bill, and the measure was given ite third rending. Having dealt at length yesterday with the continuance under the Massey Government of the abuses of "legislation by exhaustion," which the previous professions had justified one in expecting it to abate, we need do nothing more now than bring the time-table of the Land Bill up to date. On the four successive Parliamentary days given by the House to the discussion of this Bill, the first three of them being actually consecutive^ the sittings have concluded as follow:— 1.50 a.m., 2.35 a.m., 1.40 a.m., and 3 a.m. If this process continues, the closing ' days of the session will rival the Worst re* cords of the Seddonian regime. For the Government it may at least be eaid that the talking yesterday was mainly confined to the other side of the House. The opponents Of the Bill had much to say about it, but its champions considered that their most cogent reply would be in the division lobby. The debate was therefore one-sided, but the leaseholders nevertheless carried it on with vigour, and njade a mote effective demonstration than at any previous stage of the Bill. Though no organisation would have enabled them to defeat the Bill, we cannot but regret that a stronger attack was not directed against ite weak points in committee. Why, for instance, wae not the utter inadequacy of Part 11. of the Bill brought to the test of a division by an amendment affirming the compulsory principle? Subdivision wae declared by Mr. Massey in his opening speech to be the main principle of the Bill, yet when the Bill was in committee he intimated that, but for the extension of these clauses to Native land, which was first proposed before the Lands Committee, he might have been willing to let them go. A method of subdivision which will bring the large landowner and the settler into direct relations, with no more responsibility on the part of the Government than thai of an honest broker, is much to be desired. But the inducements held out to the landowner by the Bill are not strong enough to have any appreciable effect. Without ' compulsion the subdivisional part of Mr. Massey's Bill will probably remain practically a dead letter. The supreme test of such a Bill, as Mr. Forbes said yesterday, is whether it wMI put more people on the land. Measured by this test, the Bill seems doomed to failure. We say this with regret, and without being biased by our dislike for its freehold provisions. There is, as we have often urged, ample scope, for' a land settlement policy which can 1 be supported without prejudice to the ( question of tenure. Even a leaseholder greatly prefers a number of small free>, holds to a few such aggregates as mono^ polise immense tracts of fertile land in Hawkes Bay.' Thus it is that the Land Settlement Finance Act of the Ward Government received a practically unanimous support. The Massey .Government might have carried this policy further, but we must wait for the demonstrated failure of Part 11. of the present Bill before it will attempt a genuine forward move. According to Mr. Hindmarsh, tho Bill was framed for the express purpose of promoting land aggregation. We do not suspect Mr. Massey of any such Machiavellian intention, but it is clear from the face of the Bill, and from his own admissions, that he has been more successful in "enlarging .(-he privileges of men already on the land than in providing means for putting more men on it. The very fact that these concessions have been made to men already in possession is a proof that in the absence of these concessions there has been no difficulty in getting the land taken, up. The man who has already got a good thing is given something better, but wo look in viiiu for any provision that will much improve tho landless ni&a'k ohanoofi of getting from the WtaU

or from a private owner the opportunity for making a home and a livelihood. Ultimately, the provisions regarding Native land jmay prove to be the most effective for this purpose, but the probability is that there will be a very long delay before anything is done under them. Before the second instalment of the Government's land policy comes down, we tmst that Mr. Massey will have realised that the best way to provide for the landless man is to induce the wealthy owner to part with bw surplus, and that no voluntary inducement that the State can afford will meet the case. Compulsion alone will provide the stimulus that is needed.