The Dominion. TUESDAY, OCTOBER' 22, 1907 THE LAND BILL.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 23, 22 October 1907, Page 4

The Dominion. TUESDAY, OCTOBER' 22, 1907 THE LAND BILL.

' It was not expected'that "much now light would be thrown on the principles of the Land Bill,by the third reading debate, but, even when allowance, has been made for pie intense and continuous discussion to which the land question has been subjected during more than a year, last night's discussion was disappointing. The Minister for Lands, for • instance, preferred the "canny" policy of silence. : to the statesmanlike duty of speech, in moving the third reading; the Premier merely sparred and quibbled for half an hour over what/Mr. Massey had said or had not said.; and Mr. Massey himself, so far as direct criticism of theBill was concerned, failed to score many notable points. We should, for instance, have liked to have heard a thorough discussion of Part IV of the Bill, that_ part which introduces—for the first time, wo believe, in the British Empire—the principle of State denial of one of the commonest and most natural rights of man. The Legislative Council's unrescntful swallowing of the serious injustices in certain clauses of the Land and Income Assessment Bill discourages any hope of material amendment of the Land Bill by the revising Chamber, and Mr. Massey was _ therefore doubtless correct in predicting that the Bill will become law in its present form, We need not summarise the Bill here: in a phrase, it is what a mathematician would call " a first approximation" to the 1 nationalisation of the laud. That it provides for the acquisition of the freehold by lessees-in-perpetuity in

no way discredits this view, since the offer of the freehold is a bogus"' offer. No lessee-in-perpetuity is likely to pay the State the present value of his holding, and, even if he could, he would not pay the present value for a title that denies him the liberty of re-sale except to landless, or almost landless, buyers. Like the limitation clauses of last year's Bill, which the AttorneyGeneral "gave away" so, badly, to use Mr. Mass.ey's phrase,' the limitation clauses of the present measure weredrafted in complete ignorauce of, or with entire disregard for, the numberless inconveniences and injustices which, as Mr. Hemes showed, 'must proceed from the turning adrift into the market of small blocks that will only hamper t-He free exchange necessary to real land settlement and progress. It is possible, of course, that the Government are playing a deep game, and making the freehold "offer" so unacceptable as to warrant their introduction of a 1908 Bill, granting the freehold at the original value, in order to get rid of the objectionable leases-in-perpetuity. They would thus sifte their face for the present, and disarm the Opposition at .the polls. Mr. Massey can quite, safely bid the lessees hope on.. A. Government which says in 1906 that no more Crown lands shall be sold, and in 1907 that the freehold will be granted at.the present value, should have no difficulty in squaring the circle by offering, the freehold at the original value /in 190 S. What may be left to time in this case may safely be left to time in the case of other proposals in the Bill, and especially the proposals, in Part IV, since the-inconveniences'of those branded " freeholds" will effect their own cure. When the clauses relating to the freehold offer are eliminated, the residue is simply so milch concession to the Socialists, who bewitched the Ministry into- bringing.- down the impossible Bill'of .1906. We should have thought that last year's experience would have suggested to the Government \ that the Socialist is 'a bad guide for., practical. politicians iipori questions relating to the land, but we must not further probe the psychology of the Government's land policy. In many respects, of course, the Bill has our warm approval. ; The abolition of the lease-in-perpetuity as a future form -of tenure, the amendment in the constitution of the Land- Boards, and the improvement of the conditions of the ballot are all valuable, reforms. But they do not make up for the :SOcialistic trend.of the measure, and we shall be surprised if amending legislation of an important character ,is not placed upon the Statute Book. 1 before another Parliament has run its course.