LAND AND REFORM.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXXIII, Issue 15901, 12 April 1912, Page 6

LAND AND REFORM.

The point Mr Massey particularly wanted to make plain when speaking at Met riven on Wednesday night was that his party was not “ under the thumb of the largo land-owners.” “ So much had been said by the Government newspapers on the Reform Party's land policy,” the ' authorised report of his speech runs, “that ho took the opportunity of putting it clearly before the country.” In view of this declaration it is only fair to the leader of the Opposition that his remarks should bo published as widely as possible and we offer no apology for making another quotation from tho authorised report of his speech :■ —

The party was in favour of the opening up of all Crown lands for settlement purposes and the opening up for settlement of unoccupied Native lands not required by their owners. They were in favour of making every unoccupied acre of land available for every settler who wished to go on it. The Reform Party was in favour of the .land paying its fair share of taxation, but they were not in favour of any unfair tax being imposed on the landowners of this country. Further, tho party was in favour of any taxation necessary to ensure the closer settlement of largo estates, and they were in favour of discriminating between the man who made good use of his land and the man who did not. The Opposition organ which prints these remarks regards them as a clear and convincing exposition of the party’s land policy. “Wo must, draw the attention of our readers to his brief statement of the land policy of his party,” it says after promising to refer to other points in tho speech later on, “ a policy which is that of the 1 square deal ’ for all concerned, and which effectually disposes of tho allegation that the party are under the thumb of tho big land-owners. It is a policy which must commend itself to the country as offering the best solution of the problem of land settlement, while refraining from violating the principles of justice and fair'deal - ing.” These are all very admiral.! - platitudes, of course, but we sho, J

like our contemporary to point out

single particular in which Mr Mastcy’s land “ policy,” as it is disclosed in his speech, differs from tlio policy of any other sane politician. W r e are all in favour of opening up the Crown lands for settlement purposes and the Native lands not required by their owners. It would bo a little difficult, and perhaps a little inconvenient to the settlers, to make “ every unoccupied acre of land available for every settler who wished to go on it,” but wo are all in “ favour.” of the close settlement which appears to have been in the mind of tho author of this curiously involved sentence. W r o all again arc in favour of “the land paying its fair share of taxation,” of “ any taxation necessary to ensure the closer settlement of

largo estates,” and of “ discriminating between the man who makes good use of his land and the man who dees not.” These “planks” are common to every party platform in these days nnd are no more the monopoly df the Reformers than they are of tho Liberals or of the Socialists. Tile Liberals have the advantage of having put them into practice twenty years ago, but they havo no exclusive right to them on that account. The fact is that the land policy of the. Reform Party, which according to our contemporary “ effectually disposes of the allegation that tho party are under the thumb of the big land-owners, ,r is merely a collection of high-sounding phrases borrowed from various sources which commit Sir Massey and his friends to nothing at all. To describe them as a policy in the sense tho public are asked to accept the term, is indeed ridiculous and simply shows again how anxious the Opposition is to conceal its real intentions in respect to the land.