The New Zealand Times. THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 1914. OPENING THE CAMPAIGN

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 8654, 12 February 1914, Page 4

The New Zealand Times. THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 1914. OPENING THE CAMPAIGN

If the speech delivered by the Hon. W. F. Massey at Te Aroha. on. Tuesday night was the opening of the political campaign, and the right honourable gentleman declared that it was, it must bo regarded as the most profitless and depressing opening that this country has witnessed for many years. Surely some declaration of policy is an essential to a political campaign. Mr Massey appears to be quite as bankrupt in the matter of policy as he was twelve months ago, if not more so. There was scarcely a word of policy in the whole of his deliverance. There was certainly nothing fresh. And yet the taunt is being persistently levelled at the Liberal party that it is devoid of a policy. This may or may not be correct, and probably it is very wide of the truth, but unquestionably it is the Government and not the Opposition to which the country is entitled to look for a policy. The Government holds the administrative power. By virtue of its majority, it is in the position to legislate. The Opposition is not. Therefore, it is the Government to which the country must look for some declaration of its legislative intentions. Nevertheless, though Mr Massey talked much inconsequential bathos concerning what he had. and had not done, he was practically silent on this vital point of what he and his party proposed to do. The only conclusion that the dispassionate critic cam arrive at, after carefully studying. Mr Massey’s speech, is that the policy of the Tories is to hold on to the power of administrative control at all hazards.

If the whole of the legislative policy of “Reform” was contained in Mr Massey’s speech, all that it amounts to is an intention to extend the freehold concessions to the leaseholders and a determination to make a start with the separate New Zealand Navy by building one Bristol cruiser, which is to patrol our coasts, control the trade routes, and go to the rescue of Great Britain in airy period of national peril. So far as the freehold concessions are concerned, it is difficult to see how they can be extended, unless Mr Massey proposes to sacrifice the national endowments also. He has carried his policy of political profligacy to such an extent that he has given away pretty well everything that there is to give. In his boastful moments at Te Aroha, he gloated upon the fact that he had given the freehold to nearly 2000 Crown tenants. That is all very well as far as it goes. But is Mr Massey prepared to attach no weight to the fact that in order to make valuable gifts to these 2000 fortunate individuals he robbed a million inhabitants of New Zealand of their national rights? It is the policy of Toryism to legislate for the few against the many. This is what Mr Massey has done, in granting freehold rights to 2000 leaseholders, and thus destroying a magnificent system of State tenantry. Mr Massey has conferred valuable advantages, which may be assessed in coin of the realm, upon the 2000 of his political supporters. But what of the one million inhabitants of New Zealand who were not leaseholders, and who have been despoiled of their national estate in order that the 2000 might be made wealthy men? The difference between the existing political parties is that Liberalism was legislating for ' the advantage of the mass of the inhabitants of New Zealand and not for the profit of a favoured few—for the million rather than for the two thousand. Even these 2000 fortunate individuals, who have now been made wealthy by the gift of the freehold, would still be penniless and landless if it had not been for the beneficent policy of the Liberals, who found land for them, financed their operations, and made them what they are to-day. Mr Massey expressed the fervent hope that naval defence will never bo allowed to become a party question in this country. So far ■ as it is intended to cut the painter binding us to the Mother Country, and embarking upon a fool scheme of a separate Navy, the policy can be regarded only as a party question. Nay, more. As a policy, it cannot be defended on the ground of expediency, common-sense or patriotism. If the intention is merely to bluff tb© Admiralty into compliance with its own undertaking to station two Bristols, three destroyers and two submarines in these waters, the method adopted is a clumsy and stupid one, and is calculated to excite derision rather than concern in England. But if the irrepressible Colonel Allen, eager to be the First Lord of

our Admiralty, is really bent upon this prepo-sterous scheme, and if Mr Massey is prepared to aid and- abet him, they will find themselves in violent collision with public opinion throughout this country'. The popular and patriotic sentiment in New Zealand is opposed to cutting the painter binding us to the Mother Country. So tar as Air Massey is concerned, his own attitude is illogical, and quite inconsistent with his convictions on the question of Home Rule. In the case of Ireland, he is opposed to the demand of the majority of the people for self-government on tho ground that it might lead to the cutting of the painter with England. But here in New Zealand, where wo enjoy the right of self-government and are intensely loyal, Mr Massey is intent upon building a separate Navy and severing the painter simply in order to find a policy different from Sir Joseph Ward’s. If that is not the motive, then it is wholly beyond our power ‘of comprehension or discernment. If tho Admiralty is not prepared to carry out the naval agreement entered into when the gift of our battleship was made, the matter is one for diplomatic negotiation rather than stupid and ill-tempered reprisal. There is no reason, whatever why this country should invest half-a-million or more in building a Bristol cruiser. Even if we had such a ship to-morrow, the cost of her maintenance would be wholly beyond our means. Finally, if we were prepared to saddle ourselves with the heavy cost of building and maintaining ono cruiser, what advantage would she be to us? One modern Dreadnought could Ho comfortably out of range and blow a score of such craft out of the water in less than an hour. And yet this is the naval policy that Mr Massey hopes will not he made a party question. It seems to us that Mr ilassey is reckoning without his host.