THE NEW POLICY.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLVI, Issue 14222, 19 November 1909, Page 7

THE NEW POLICY.

CRITICISED BY MR. MASSEY.

A VIGOROUS SPEECH.

In the course of his speech on the Financial Statement in the House of Representatives on Tuesday evening, Mr. Massey said: — Several of the Budget proposals had been advanced ,by the Opposition, e.g., freehold tenure, national military training, and for the superannuation funds to be placed in a sound position. Proceeding to deal with the increase of taxation, he said the taxation in New Zealand was higher than in any of- the Commonwealth States. It had been gradually rising since the Liberal party came into power. In 1893 it was £3 lis 2d per head in 1908 it was £5 Os 4d per capita. The figures for the other States were: New South Wales, £3 lis 4d; Victoria, £3 7s 2d; Queensland, £3 14s 9d; South Australia, £3 15s lOd; West Australia. £4 17s 8d ; and Tasmania, £3 13s 4d. He could not see why this should be the position, seeing that New Zealand had such a splendid country, with such an industrious people. The expenditure in connection with the cost of conducting the affairs of the country had increased from £5.085,344 in 1908, to £5,575,433 in 1909, an increase of £490,039. As a matter of fact, the increase had been at the rate of half-a-million per year for quite a number of years. With careful administration, the cost would not have been anything like the amount which he had mentioned. With respect to the claim that the position of the Dominion was never brighter, he had to say it-<-although he was sorry to do so—that those who were responsible for the statement were either trying to mislead the country or were showing the grossest incapacity.

THE LAND QUESTION. Referring to the Government's departure from its principles on the land question, Mr. Massey asked what would be thought of Mr. Lloyd-George or Mr. Winston Churchill if they backed down on their tariff reform proposals. He would have far more respect for the Government if they had stuck to their ideas and principles— they had any ideas and principles to stand by, which he doubted. Those who had stood by. the freehold in the days when it was less popular in the House and country than it was now could congratulate themselves on tho present position. But there was much to do. Though the Government had given way, it would be a long time before his party were able to gain all they wanted. They had not deviated from the straight course in the past, and they would not do so in the future. Their goal was to put as many men as they possibly could on the lands of the country under the best conditions, and under the best tenure that the law could provide for them. When they got the Land Bill before Parliament, he "hoped to improve on the present proposals to a very great extent. He quite admitted that the proposal- in regard to the 'lease in perpetuity was a most important one. The proposal was that in the first place the settler should be able to buy at the original value, plus half the increase between the original and present value, or, in the second place, he might pay 1 per cent., with an increase every 33 years for 165 years. But it was utter nonsense that any land law would last 165 vears. When the land law of two years ago was placed on the Statute Book they expected it would last the present generation, arid now they were practically repealing it. The Prime Minister had admitted that the value of the reversion to the State after 999 years was not very appreciable, and that if the freehold were given it could be limited. Why, then, should not the Government do the right thing, and give the settlers the freehold at, the original value on an occupation-with-, purchase basis? That would be a good thing for the settler, and a very good bargain for the country. In connection with the renewable lease of Crown lands, the paragraph in the Statement was not worth the paper it was printed on. THE ENDOWMENT SYSTEM. The Minister for Lands knew that -the system of endowments, along with the system of renewable lease, had been a ghastly failure. The endowments were set aside, not because they were wanted for purposes of education or old age pensions, but to please the leaseholders and land nationalises in Parliament and their supporters outside. It .was just as well they should recognise that, and set to work to rectify It. He did not object to endowments if they were proper endowments, but when the land was fit for settlement or agricultural purposes, and settlement was retarded by the tenure offered to settlers, they should provide a better tenure. He was willing that the whole of the revenue, either the capital value or the annual rental from those endowments, should be set apart for education or old age pensions. Then let the land be opened up under the occupation with right of purchase system, and let the capital be used for the purchase of land in the cities and suburban districts. In those districts the value would go on increasing with the increased population, and in half-a-century or a little more they would have endowments worth the name. A DRIFTING POLICY. Much of the Government's legislation," and the greater part of their administration, had not been in the interests of the people. To-day there were very large areas lying idle; revenue was hardly balancing the expenditure; arrivals were hardly balancing departures, despite the fact that an immigration scheme was in force. The Government was drifting on the sea of politics to such an extent that it did not know to which political port it was steering. In regard to the taxation proposals, he would only say further that he had perhaps less objection to the death duties proposals than to any of the other proposals. Mr. Massey referred to the proposal to tax property left by husbands to their widows, and to the increase in the annual appropriations. THE COUNTRY SETTLER. Mr. Massey urged the necessity of encouraging the country settlers, and not harassing and discouraging them by legislation. It was their duty to find unoccupied land for all who required if, if possible. The land question would never be settled, because the circumstances and conditions changed, and the law must change with them, but they must give confidence to the men on the land, and provide that there should be neither reaggregation on the one hand nor too much subdivision on the other hand, and there would be no difficulty in doing both. • LAND TAXATION. The land taxation pressed heavily, not so much on the man who kept his land in an unimproved condition as on the improving settler. Encouragement of improvements was the first thing that should be considered. In regard to the proposed repeal of the Crown Tenants' Rebate Act, there was a crude proposal that a man with a family of four children, under 16 years of age, should be allowed his rebate. But the way to help such persons was to allow them a reduction of 1 per cent, on the ordinary interest. What the Government proposed would encourage the man who was able to pay his rent to refrain from paying it at the proper date. THE GAMBLING ACT.

There was one proposal in the Statement with which he thoroughly agreed, and that was for an amendment of the Gambling Act. When the Act was amended two years ago, the House made a very serious mistake, for, as a result of that legislation, there was now more gambling and incitement to gamble than formerly. The Prime Minister proposed, a tax of 2 per cent, in connection with the proceeds of racecourses, but he hoped they were not going, after compelling the racing • clubs to license the betting men, to share in the proceeds of gambling on racecourses. They should repeal the very objectionable provisions of the Gambling Act of two years ago..