POLITICAL POINTS

Evening Star, Issue 14414, 9 July 1910, Page 2

POLITICAL POINTS

It is inevitable that a writer on political topics should revert to the Laud Question at the very earliest opportunity. , The subject has not been revived in; any very definite shape in the House/ but it has been in the Council, particularly by two speakers (the Hons. J. It. Sinclair and S. Anstey). It would be very difficult to find in the Lower House a pair of members equal to those two Councillors as clear, thoughtful, practical, and weighty exponents of Freehold and Leasehold doctrines respectively. Mr Anstey is a Leaseholder, but there are Leaseholders and Leaseholders. He is one who looks at both sides of the question. With him ■conservation of the right of the landlord {in this case the State) is not allowed to outweigh the claims of the Crown tenants, lie wants to see people put on the land, preferably on the leasehold tenure. He argues that the people who generally want land are not usually able to buy it, and the freehold would bo no inducement to them. But ho not only wants people put on the land, but wants them given security of tenure. Herein he differs from some of the extreme theorists in the Lower House—the Radical Leaseholders of whom Mr T. E. Taylor may bo taken as typical —who want to see settlement fostered on tho leasehold system, but their terms would not suit Crown tenants. Messrs Taylor, M‘Laron, Ell, and Co. are so anxious to see the “unearned increment” conserved for tho Slate that they would make the lease of limited tenure, and, on its expiry, would put it up to auction or have it balloted for after revaluation. ******* Now that sounds very democratic. In the first place the interests of the State would bo well looked after, and in the second place many more would be given a chanco to get on the land for a while at any rate; but would the change bo worth having ? The practical Leaseholder says “ No.” “ Without security of tenure you won’t promote settlement,” replies Mr Anstey, who points out that no settler will go to tho back-blocks and spend the best of his lifetime in carving out a home when Ire knows that just about the time he has made his place habitable lac will have to compete for it at auction against all and sundry, or lake long odds about drawing the lucky marble in a ballot, or of having the right to stay on at an increased rental in the home, lie himself made. Supposing such a system were once started it might not be so bad for the next lessee and those who followed ; but under sucli conditions as Mr Taylor would offer there would bo no pioneers. In other words, settlement would not be promoted ; it would be throttled. Mr Anstey is not against short leases, with revaluation ; but he would give the right of renewal. He would thus conserve to tho State the unearned increment, and would give security of tenure to the lessee. Ho would be fair to both landlord and ■tenant. The only reservation he would make to tho right of renewal would be incase further subdivision were decided on at the expiry of the lease; but. he would give the existing tenant the right to the lease of the homestead section, just iis the Government, in cutting up an, acquired estate, allow the owner to retain the-home-stead subdivision. ■ ' * * * * * * » It has been said that the Land .Question has not been raised in any very definite shape in file House-so fa.r this session ; but it cropped up'here and there in nearly every speech on the Addrtss-in-Reply debate. Mr Cfaigio, ip seconding, the. Address, declared ; that,.the longer he. lived the firmer became liis belief ■in the leasehold.” Many members have been wondering why the bold announcement of the member for liman! was made at this juncture, because other Leaseholders have been tpplying a softening.rather than a hardening process to their • convictions. Even such a staunch Leaseholder as Mr, Forbes said that the question of tenure was of minor importance compared with tho necessity for getting people on the , land.' The Hen. "dr Anstey said very much, the same thing, and so have ■ other Government Leaseholders. One critic aptly summed up the situation by saying that the Leaseholders arc preparing to get out of the way of the “Land Slide” that is coming. The Government have premised ihe House that the Land Bill of last year, with certain amendments, will bo again submitted Tor approval. What are these “certain amendments”? Does the minor key in which tho Leaseholder’ hymn before action is being softly chanted just now mean that they arc going to evacuate certain positions because the enemy outnumbers them? Lobby gossip answers “Yes,” and it hints, moreover, that the Leaseholders will concentrate their forces on one point-—namely, the retention of the Endowment Lands by the State—and defend it to the very last. * * * * * * »

The Address-in-Reply debate lasted nearly three days, and was about as useful as such debater usually are. Far more interesting were the impromptu discussions raised on several afternoons this -week. Sir T. E. Taylor took a, big part in them. Ho was, in fact, the instigator of many of them. His versatility is amazing. At ■f-ne tune his subject would be banking, r.t another insurance, at another unionism; but whatever his subject was bis treatment of it revealed ono dominating idea and purpose —State Socialism. He was like a. prospector sinking trial shafts along the line of reef, and reporting payable prospects everywhere. Even his handling of the Christchurch incident was made (o point (he moral of the rights of the Democracy and the non-existence of inti nence on behalf of the man in moleskins where it might be exerted on behalf of the man in broadcloth. One of the lessons Mr Taylor sought to inculcate had reference to the pending election of Chairman of Committees. He 'was stopped on a point of order when he began io enlarge on an aspect that was undoubtedly personal, but lie adroitly outflanked the Standing Orders by giving his argument a general instead of a particular application. Mr Taylor is never cornered, but Mr Davey’s frankness, his urbanity, and his popularity will go far to disarm opponents who seek to affect his chance for the office just vacated by Mr Wilford. * « * * «• * * There were two speakers on the Address-in-Reply whose attitude on one particular matter is not likely to lessen the feeling of responsibility which the new Government Whips have to shoulder. Both Mr B. H. Clark and Mr Hogan sit on the Ministerial side of the House, but both exhibited in their speeches a certain restivendss under the knowledge that there is such a thing as a Whip. What they said indicated that Laey find a certain irksomeness about the party system of government. Mr Hogan is evidently an admirer of the Labor party in Australia, where a Ministerial Caucus determines the Ministerial policy. Mr Horan would not go that length, but for a start he suggested that, the Addrefe-in-Roply cubate should be utilised as a kind of open caucus, and that Ministers should listen to their supporters’ speeches and £nuc»

their policy accordingly. If that iorrrse were adopted the debate would be extraordinary, and the resultant policy still more extraordinary. What an attempt to eliminate party would lead to no one knows. The system has its defects. Mr Berries suggested on Thursday night that, party considerations had affected the j-.watitut.ion of committees. He pointed out that 1 Mr M'Laren (Independent) was allowed to withdraw trom a certain ccmmitt/eo, sendee on which is not coveted, while Mr Wright (Oppositionist) was not, the inference being that Mr M'Laren’s support was being angled for by the Government. But if in this particular instance efforts were being made to propitiate Mr M’Laren, ha received enough treatment of another kind during the week to leave a very substantial debit balance. The two Otago Ministers (Hoiis. J. A. Millar and T. Mackenzie) can hit very straight, and Mr Taylor had to rush in continually to protect Mr M'Laren. *******

The session began in earnest last night, when legislation was eagerly entered on. n uas prefaced in the afternoon by an impromptu debate, in which members shone with quite dazzling brilliancy, and Mr Laurenson was not wide of the mark when he said it was the most interesting discussion he had heard in the House for years.