LAND POLICY.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 873, 20 July 1910, Page 6

LAND POLICY.

. The agonised leaseholders who have been hoping desperately -chat the Government has made up its mind on the land question will derive no satisfaction from the Budget references to the Bill that is to be brought down. It is true that the paragraph dealing/with the subject is capable of being interpreted-as a promise of a strong leasehold measure, but it is equally true that a strong freehold Bill may be read between the lines. The Government, that is to say, has again shirked the unpleasant task of committing itselt to some clear policy founded on a clear principle. We are told that the question "has been receiving the closest attention/' and that it is believed that the Bill to be brought down "will be acceptable to a majority of the people of this country and of the members of this House." "The- difficult question of tenure," it is further observed, will be placed upon a footing which_ conserves in reasonable degree the rights and interests of both the State and Lho settlers." We shall dp the Government the-justice of believing that behind this innutvitious and shadowy proclamation of nothing at all there may exist some vague- intention that any other Government would have been able to body forth at least in rough outline. Accustomed at all times to talk from the depths ot a foggy jungle of words, the Ministry \i in respect of the land question more than usually anxious to prevent anybody from knowing where it is. Still, we dare say it tried to be frank, and we can. conceive that after the words we have quoted were finally approved the Government was a little doubtful whether it had not been too positive,and downright in declaring its policy. No cautious man, remembering the Government's agitated changes of policy since 1906, would venture to say with any confidence what any particular statement of land policy by the Government may point to. If we might hazard a guess, however, we should say that ment contemplated dropping the tenure issue altogether. ,It has some vague ideas about "a further and a better means of obtaining land for the people, ,, and the reference to the conservation of the rights of the State seems to point to the introduction, of the principle of taxing what is called the "unearned increment. We may note here that there have been signs that the Government believes that the extreme Radicals will be content to abandon their demand for the leasehold if they are given a measure that will provide for the periodical robbery oi the freeholder. Some of the leasehold organs are attempting to lead the public to believe that such a' measure would only bo a copying of the English law. Our evening contemporary, for example, was last night extolling the imposition of a heavy tax upon the increment value ot agricultural and pastoral land, and it went on to say that the British Government had successfully tackled this problem. Our contemporary knows perfectly well—or it should know—that the British Government made a special point of exempting all purely agricultural land from the operation of the increment tax. These, however, are tactics that cannot hope for success, and they are noted here only' in order that the. freehold majority in the House and in the country may.see the necessity foi vigilance. When the time comes the freeholders will have no difficulty in presenting an unanswerable case against this new measure of Radical bitterness against the man on the land, and in the meantime they should organise their. forces_ to onsure a clear issue on the question of tenure. That must be got out of the way first. It is only a matter of time, and an exceedingly short time at that, before the people realise that the Government's anxiety not to recognise the freehold sentiment of the country proceeds, not from any conviction in principle, but solely from a desire to hold office as the servants of what Ministers think is a strong Socialistic vote. - .