The New Zealand Times. MONDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 1913. “REFORM” AND MONOPOLY

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVII, Issue 8362, 24 February 1913, Page 6

The New Zealand Times. MONDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 1913. “REFORM” AND MONOPOLY

The “Heform” party, otherwise and better known as the Tories, wore engineered into power at the last general election by the strategy, wealth and influence of the squatters, and though these had the unsuspecting help of a large proportion of the small farmers and an unreflecting section of Labour, it is becoming abundantly clear, fiom the signs of the times, that is in power for the protection of the interests of the great land monopolists and for the furtherance of the cause of tho classes against the masses. This is not indicated by any chango in our legislation, because “Reform” is too astute‘to unduly excite the suspicions of tho multitude as opposed to tho favoured few. But every administrative act betrays the dominating influence behind tho throne. It is shown in the spoliation of the public estate, tho preference given to tho individual of wealth m the acquisition of Crown lands, the re-aggrcgation of estates, the tenderness to land sharks, tho imposition of arbitrary and irritating restraints upon the Civil Service, the higher salaries conceded to the upper officials and the refusal of fair wages to tho rank and file, and in a hundred other ways. In a word, the “governing families” have come into their own again at last, and they are already using their power in the interests of privilege. Behind this party of “Reform,” tho chief supporting pillars are the wealth and influence of the great squatters of Hawke’s Bay. These people, as we shall eventually show, are the principal owners of tho squatters’ organ, which pursued a relentless campaign of misrepresentation against Sir Joseph Ward, that cajoled a section of Labour Into a mood of trustful subservience, and then kicked and abused it as if it were a faithless dog, and that has indulged itself in gleeful transports of soif-congratulation at what it regards as the downfall of Liberalism, tho only political power in this country tho squatters ever dreaded, and not without reason. We propose to take Hawke’s Bay as a glaring example of land monopoly in order to illustrate the motives behind this policy. Tho latest official returns show that in the year 1911 the total area under occupation in that province was 3,211,086 acres. The whole of the land in our islands that is available for any kind of occupation or cultivation is estimated to bo not more than 62,000,000 acres, so that the fortunate holders in Hawke’s Bay were in possession of 6.17 per cent., or in round terms, one-sixteenth, , of New Zealand. Will it be believed that they numbered a paltry 4648—that those few persons, equal to leas than onehalf per cent, of tho population, were two years ago, holding, as we say, one-sixteenth of all our land? This is surely a shocking proof of land monopoly, a striking illustration of the gross menace of .squatterdom. But the facts stated so far are as nothing compared with those that are to follow. Of the total number of holders, more than 3000 had to be content with less than 50 acres, and 1400 with less than 10. On the other hand, 528 persons monopolised 2,613,288 acres. Bad as this division is when taken as a whole, detailed examination shows the situation to be little short of ghastly. A trifle over 11 per cent, of the Hawke’s Bay landholders had up to 1911 secured more than 81 per cent, of all the land in occupation. Here are some sample groups compiled from the blue-books:— Number of ’ Area in holders. acres. 528 2,613,288 128 1,741,037 48 1,173,934 16 698,248 6 ' 428,168 Wo may be told that tho position has been vastly improved since the date of the latest returns. That may be so, or it may not. Probably the super-tax put on to the graduated land tax schedule by Sir Joseph Ward, which first became operative in 1910, Has made some of the monopolists reflect! Possibly it has stimulated subdivision. There is, as a matter of fact, some evidence of sub-division, but it is within certain families,, a portion of the estate being transferred to each down to the smallest children. But we know that over three hundred persona were after one section in Hawke’s Bay within the last few days, and that every section at every ballot is absolutely rushed by a multitude of applicants—just as will surely happen again this week in respect of the Sherenden allotments. Whatever degree of improvement may have taken place since the latest records .were compiled, nobody can entertain the slightest doubt that there is in the province of Hawke’s Bay to-day land monopoly of a character and extent not extravagantly described as appalling. But, it may bo asserted, though these Hawke’s Bay landholders be few and their possessions large, they are making good use of tho land; they are extensive employers, men of capital and enterprise, up-to-date farmers, contributing wonderfully to the national wealth and prosperity. To this we can only make the melancholy reply that the facts irresistibly compel the investigator towards the opposite conclusion. In T9ll, when 4648 persons held over 3,000,000 acres, they used that wide area in this way: Acres Broken up but not under crop 7,281 In wheat - 1,787 In oats (for grain) 5,778 In barley 2,000 Other grain crops 1,301 Oats (for green food) 11,929 Potatoes 1,245 Other crops 34,352 In grass, after having been ploughed 356,925 Grass sown, but not ploughed 1,405,543 Total at all improved... 1,828,141 Leaving absolutely unimproved 1,382,945 Total occupied 3,211,086 Thus nearly one-half, or at all events

over 43 per cent., of all the rural land “occupied” in Hawke’s Bay a couple of years ago was unimproved—it had never had a plough put into it nor even a seed sown; while of tho remainder, the portion “improved” by the very rich owners, 96.41 per cent, was in grass! W© need surely offer no excuse for a strong condemnation of this system. Land monopoly is rampant throughout Now Zealand, we know full well, and the evil will .have to bo wrestled with in all our provinces, but Hawke’s Bay stands out prominently as the headquarters of the most arrogant squattocracy, and as a district where tho evil of consolidation of acres is aggravated by tho rich quality of the land. One of the byproducts of such an unequal distribution of tho soil, and of opportunities for true and useful settlement, is seen in the unfortunate “representation” of tho province in Parliament—excepting tho town of Napior, which has too grim an experience of the effects of monopoly to listen to a Tory candidate. Mr H. M. Campbell and Mr George Hunter are, no doubt, estimable gentlemen in private life, but nobody needs to be asked whether they found their way to Parliament through any conspicuous personal abilities, merits, or qualifications, or by reason of the undoubted weight and influence of money and broad acres. are characteristic types of tho politicians who have engineered self-styled Reform into power, and, if the people submit, are determined, to keep it there.