The New Zealand Times. WEDNESDAY, JULY 24, 1912. THE MINISTRY AND THE LAND

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVI, Issue 8181, 24 July 1912, Page 6

The New Zealand Times. WEDNESDAY, JULY 24, 1912. THE MINISTRY AND THE LAND

"We Intend to make a specialty oi land settlement.’’—Oracular deliverance by Mr Massey at Woodville.

We are unable to count ourselves among those who look forward to the Government doing in regard to land anything that will be of value to the community. Though its immediate intentions are judiciously veiled for the. present the general trend of their administration and legislation upon this question can he foreseen without much difficulty. The disgraceful party bribe to a section of tenants in occupation of Crown lands will, of course, be offered. There will be a period of living from hand to mouth by such uninspiring as the Land Finance Act, the Land for Settlement Act, and the altogether deplorable scheme for “providing workers with homes.” Much activity will be shown also in settling the remaining remnant of Crown lands, in taking advantage of any available opportunity of “ dealing with ” unoccupied native holdings and in the resumption of estates now held by our esteemed friends the greater landlords. This policy will he one that can be relied upon to find favour with the Ministerial following in the electorates, but will provoke no enthusiasm or admiration among the mass of the people. It will . leave them exactly where they are to-day, and while running its allotted course will merely succeed in accentuating every one of the troubles wo now have to perplex us in relation to this vital question. Monopoly will remain untouched, and so long as that is so the land problem will he with us to disturb the peace of Parliament and Ministers.

One of our contemporaries, we notice. flounders to the courageous conclusion that a great deal can be done by the Government in promotion of land settlement “ without raising any of the controversial aspects of the land question.” This delightful counsel means that the Ministry should discharge its, obligations to the nation by becoming a collection of artful dodgers, shuffling along from year to year without principle or even pretence of principle, evading controversy by use 1 of sops and doles. We believe that this is what the Government will do—it will bribe the Crown tenants, line the pockets of the -large landowners, and come to the rescue of the “ workers ” by further schemes of purchase and sale ; The first of these devices for buying support can in our opinion be viewed with eouanimity. The other two are inexpressibly mischievous. • * * • •

It is the land question that will kill this Government just as it proved fatal to the last, and it must be a matter of some regret to the more far-seeing section of the Ministerial following to see how desperately anxious Mr Massey and his friends invariably are to check any movement towards reaching the rock-bottom of the problem. The question rests at the base of all others, and if the Prime Minister had but a little wider vision he would realise this and embrace the opportunity now before him of doing permanent service to the people and securing a long tenure of office for his party. But unhappilv for themselves an enlightened patriotism is not among the stock in trade of Conservatives, here or anywhere else. Anyone who suggested at a party caucus that the Ministry should start by sweeping away a million of Customs duties, abolish exemption under the land tax (and also do away with the graduation) and make up the revenue by a flat tax on land Values would probably bo driven forth with deep revilings as a revolutionist. Yet such a policy as this is one that would be of immense benefit to every man, wo-

man, and child in the country, would firmly establish the claims of the Government to be animated by Liberal impulses, and go a long way towards solving many of our industrial ami social difficulties. But instead of the land question being approached on lines like these we are told the Crown must go on buying out estates, laying violent hands on the property ol the native and frittering away the national endowments for purposes of immediate gain—and this is called “land reform.” As a matter of cold fact such a policy is the negation of reform, and that'is just why it finds support from men like Mr Fisher, Mr Rhodes, Mr Buchanan and other eminent statesmen on the Conservative side of the House.

How hopeless it is to expect anything from people like these we see from some remarks which fell from Mr Hine at a “joy meeting” of the party in Woodville on Monday evening. Mr Hine is not to he regarded as a Solomon, wo know, but that may pass. He is at least typical. Discussing the achievements of the previous Administration ho said that six million pounds had been borrowed for land settlement by purchase and only five thousand persons bad been placed on the land so acquired. “Had the Reform Party been in power,” he proceeded in reckless frenzy, “it would have sold the freehold and the same money could have been used over and over again. Forty thousand people instead of five thousand would nave been settled.” "We are obliged to assume that Mr Hine is serious when he talks like this, and also those who think with him, though the assumption places some strain upon the imagination. Does ho suppose that any Government starting with say a capital of six millions to purchase land could sell the land upon'terms which involved repayment by the settlors at a rate permitting the whole of this capital to bo nsea “over and over again” in seventeen years? The idea is wildly absurd. Forty thousand settlers is eight times five thousand. It would, therefore, require, on Mr Mine’s own showing, that in every year the Crown should obtain 50 per cent, of its capital back from purchasers. The individual who attempted to inaugurate a system of that sort might possibly believe in “the promotion of settlement,” but would hardly be able to convince the Legislature of his sanity. Even if the reformers sold the fee simple of the land for settlement lands at once they would find that long periods for payment of principal would have to be given, and that the annual amount made thus available to the Crown for re-investment would be very small indeed. What effect, it is legitimate to wonder, does Mr Hine and his brother “reformers” think would _be exercised on the value of land if the State went into the market “turning six millions over and over” in the purchase of large holdings? What is their conception of the kind of, burden the unfortunate people would have to carry? Do they reflect on what the result would be upon wages? Probably these questions _ never trouble them, their vision being of a wild-cat in the last stages of dementia.