THE "LIBERAL" LAND FRAUD.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1301, 2 December 1911, Page 15

THE "LIBERAL" LAND FRAUD.

PROGRESS THAT UETS NO FURTHER FORWARD. DUPING THE PUBLIC. If there is anything tho present Government is in the habit of taking particular credit for it is what it is pleased to gtylo its "progressive land policy." To hear tho average Government candidate talk ono would imagine that anything In the nature of land settlement was unknown in New Zealand until tho year 1890. Yet what is the true position ? Despite all the Ministerial brag and bluster land settlement in proportion to the increase in population has lagged far behind the ratio established in tho period,, preceding the advent of the Continuous Ministry—that iB from 1870 to 1890. Taking the population figures, and the Government statistics showing the number o:f occupied holdings of one acre and over, and working ont tho percentages of increase, one gets the following result:—

Twenty years preceding Continuous Ministry, 1870-1890. Holdings increase in number by : 272.95 per cent Populaition increases by 151.81 per cent The latest fignros available to tho public showing, the total number of occupied holdings are those of 1908 These yield the following percentages:— Period of Continuous Ministry, 1890-1908. Holdings increase in number by 97.33 per cent Population increases by ... 57.14 per cent An 111-grounded Claini. These figures, which are based on the 'official records, in themselves are enough to Jshow _ how ill-grounded is the claim of tho present party in office to have Bent land settlement ahead at an unprecedented rate. A closer examination of official statistics will be still more surprising to those who have accepted in the good faith tho Ministerial stories about the bad old days of land monopoly' now ■upposed to have been happily ended for ever by, the "humanitarian and beneficent • legislation" of the Ward and Seddon • Ministries.

Here are tho plain cold facts. The people who want to take up land are in tho main the grown men, and again taking the Government statistics for 1891 and 1908 sad working out the percentages, one gets the following result:— . '' 1891. , 1.37 per cent of. the ,mon held 71.51 per cent of occupied land. 5.47 per cent of ;the men held 19.53 per cent of occupied land. 19.67 per cent, of the men hold 9.13. per cent of occupied land. 73.49 per cent of tho adult men were landless. ' 1908-9. 1.69 per cent of men held 73.29 peroent of occupied land. 6.04 per cent of men held 20.19 per cent ,of occupied land. 17.69 per cent of men held". 6.E0 per cent of occupied land. 74.53 per cent of the adult men were landless. < Thuj in the nineteen yean at "Liberal" land policy the proportion of LANDLESS men INCREASED by 1.09 per cent What sort of an adTanoe is this? Costly. Experimenting, The Continuous Mirustryhas certainly •pent some six millions in putting 4893 settlers •on estates --. resumed under the Land for Settlements' Act. This has meant the provision of land for only about 270 new settlers each year. With an increase of the land tax, this has been its main contribution to the problem which, after twenty/years of costly experimenting, etands practically where it was in 1890. Sir Joseph Ward declared as long ago as 1907 that it was impossible to go on borrowing money to buy estates. "The position," he declared in Parliament, "is an Impossible one." This was when he was trying to persuade Parliament to accept the M'Nab Land Bill. Mr. M'Nab had himself said the year before: "Wo are going to atand by our guni, and will, if necessary, go down with them in the twinkling of an eyo. Weare not going to float about for half a century hanging on to the Treasury Benches whilst the people are not able to make out what our land policy is." Brave words, these! Contrast them with what Mr. Hogg told tho public in October, 1909, just two years later, when Sir Joseph Ward turned him out of the Cabinet: "As for the Government's policy, I don't know what it is now. I ■ don't know that the House knows it. 1 don't know that tho right hon. gentleman's colleagues know it. At all events, it was never disclosed to me. I ha're had great donbta about it, very serious doubts." Sir Joseph Ward himself stated, in October, 1909: "In the ordinary oonrso they would have the whole question of land threshed out and settled this session."' Unhappily, the "nrholo question of land" to-day still remains almost exactly where it was in 1909, so far as the Government is conoerned, and is likely to remain no unless tho electors take this present opportunity of meting out its deserts to tho brag-and-do-nothing Administration over which Sir Joseph Word has tho honour to preside.'

Idle Native Land*. The obviou3 thing in connection with land settlement at the present time is to see th&t all tho unproductive land of the country is, as far as possible, and as fast m possible, brought into use. The Government lias devoted its energies mainly to buying up estates that were producing something, and cutting them up into smaller holdings. As was shown in an article published in Thb Dominion, and many other newspapers throughout New Zealand in August last, in the period from 1891 to 1910 about 5J million pounds was spent in repurchasing estates, while in the same period only <£676,255 was spent in buying idle Native lands for settlement. With that article appeared a map showing the> blocks of Native land in the North Island. The map giving the data'for this had been regularly, published year after year in tho report of the Lands" Department. This year's report caino out a month - or so after the articlo appeared— and the map from which the public can gain any true idea about the position of the Native lands was SUPPRESSED. Why? . The policy of the Government with regard to the vast areas of idle Native lands —areas, which oven on tho .most favourable showing for Government electioneering purposes are admitted to total over 3,000,005 aores—is so extraordinary as to bo worthy almost of a judicial investigation. The other day the country had the spectacle of a Native Minister so utterly disregardful of the public interest as to issue an Order-in-Council allowing a private speculator to acqniro a block of Native, land which he promptly sold to a ayndiciito for a profit of .£30,000, which syndicate expecfa to mako a still further out of the farmers who are to work th&t land. It was perfectly open for tho JJtata to uanin this land itsslf, and thai

was the obvious and proper courso for it to take. Tot' the Government preferred to tend .£30,000 into tho pockets of a private. individual instead of into tho coffers of the Stato, or tho purses of tho sottlora. Fortune! For The Maoris. Sir Julius Vogel was greatly binned when ho brought iu his railway-building scheme in 1870 for lotting tho increased valuo iu land go into private pockets. Ono "Liberal" Government calmly let tho North Island Main Trunk railway go right through great blocks of Native land, adding a huge unearned increment which a Native Minister with tho real interests of tho country at heart might easily havo saved. Why was not thia land acquired by tha State before the railway was put through? If the Ministry is allowed to remain in ofgee it is

i Tha country has been gradually i led away from high political | Ideals during tho last eight or « nlno yoars, until we havo a leader I of the Liberal Party and no pro- « gramme for that Liberal Party. | Thero 13 no reform or principle t to which a Liberal candidate Is ; now pledged at the general elcc- | Hon.—The late Mr. T. E. Taylor i In Parliament, Nov. 16, 1909.

more than likely, despite some piecrust declarations to the contrary, that the East Coast railway will bo built through the Bay of Plenty country—without any resumption of the idle Maori lands —to the great enrichment of the Native landlords and the heavy burdening of Bettlers who wish to acquire land there. Sir James Carroll ■ has persistently blocked the settlement of the Native lands, except on such terms as-suit him, ever since he has been in office. He is wily, and has thrown much dust in tho public eyes. Much has been heard of. his new progressive policy and his Act of 1909. This is a hollow farce so far as the real settlement of the problem is concerned. Read, for instance, what the annual Lands Department report says of it:— It is . . . highly necessary that it ihould, be understood., that tho Minister for Lands has no direct power to purchase Maori lands. This power rests with the Native Land Purchase Board, constituted under the

provisions of Soction 281 of the Native Land Act, 1909; but this board can only commence the purchase of any . specific block if tho owners thereof, or at least some of them, desire to sell to the Crown. There it no power under the Native Land Act, ISO 9, by which Native land may be acquired eompulsorily. Idle Maori lands pay no rates or taxes, but go on increasing in value as the results of tho enterprise of the. white settlers, who pay rates and taxes all tho time. Maori landlords, even though they lease their lands, can only be sued for their rates and taxes by the consent of the Native Minister. It is stated that never oneo lias Sir James Carroll given hiß consent to placing the ordinary responsibilities of land-QTTnership on the Natives.

"We.have been subjected tof 6ome demonstrations of backing and filling. We havs marched into the firing-line, determined to do or die in the interests of the people. The leader of the Opposition and some of his followers have been firing blank cartridges, and before we have fot well into the line the bngle as sounded the retreat, and we have marched off the battle-field —a langhing-stock to the community."—Mr. POOLE, Government member for Auckland West's opinion of the Government he supports expressed in Parliament on November 16,1909.

The Crying Need of To-Day. fho crying need of New Zealand to-day iB to get the Native lands opened up at onco. Mr. Massey is pledged to go ahead irith the work. Messrs. Carroll, Ward, and Co. havo played with tho question for twenty years. If you are foolish enough to bolievo them, they will tell you they are just on the verge of doing something great and large with Native affairs. Carroll will be still on the verge of doing something twenty years henoo if you give him the chance. Do not forget that, despite all the talk of what the sham Liberal party has done for you, the percentage of landless men is practically unchanged since 1890. The rate of increase in the occupied holdings of land, compared with the increase in population, has been slower since 1890, than in the period from 1870 to 1890. And yet the Government has tho audacity to talk of it* prop cube

NO'POLICY.

THE OLD TRICK OF 1908. WILL NOT WORK THIS TIME. What is the Government's policy? Does anybody know? Has anybody heard it? The Government and its friends say that there is a policy, but nobody can find it. Tho Government and its friends aro talking just as they talked in tho election campaign of 1908. It is worth while recalling some extremely interesting things eaid in 1908 by the "Lyltelton Times," one of the most cayablo of the Ward Administration's newspapers. On February 20, 1908, just after Sir J. G. Ward had made a long speech in Auckland, the "Lyttelton Times" said: At presont, we are bound to say, we do not know whore to find a full statement of tho Liberal policy. Sir Joseph Ward delivered what was called a policy specch at Auckland tha other day, but when wo come to analyse it we can discover no clear exposition of the Government's intentions, nothing that can be termed a "policy" in the accepted meaning of tho word. . . . Rhetoric is not precisely. wh«t the country neod6 at this stage. . . . We want to speak frankly on this subject. Thia is election year, and a few months hence we shall have candidates all over tho ■ oountry giving their own views of what the Liberal policy ought to be, and no two agreeing as to what it is.

This desperate appeal bore no fruit. No policy appeared. But tho days and months slipped by, and then at last tho election campaign began. Changing The Tune. Tho "lyttelton Times" had to make the best of things, and put a good faoo on tho situation. So, on October 17, it had to say the Government had a policy. On that day it said this; It is a little amusing to find a . numbeT of the followers .of Mr. Maseey excusing their opposition to the Government on the plea that Sir Joseph Ward and his colloagucs have no policy. . , . Sic Joseph Ward's '

policy may be found in a hundred measures that have been placed on the Statute Book during the ' past three years, and if there are any gaps to fill up the material may bo obtained from the Prime Minister's speeches. On November U the Prima Minister issued his manifesto, and the "Lyttelton Times" went into ecstasies about it It thus described that mass of words; He [the Prime Minister] opened with a crushing attack upon the Opposition. . . . Sir Joseph Ward's survey of the Conservative attitude is mercilessly complete. . . .. .. Sir Joseph forcefully enunciates the prin-' ciples of progressive ' Liberalism. . . Tho Prime Minister promises a con* tinuance of this magnificent policy;, and reading HIS IMPRESSIVE DECLARATION wo arc convinced that New Zealand will unhesitatingly grant to him and to his party a renowal of its full confidence. And it talked like this right up to election day, just as the Government and its friends are talking now. When The Truth Comes Out, But on November 25, only eleven days after the lyric outburst we have quoted, and one day after the election, when there were .no longer any votes to to gained, what did the "Lyttolton Times" say? It said this:

"THE PARTY WENT TO THE COUNTRY WITHOUT ANYTHING IN THE SHAPE OF A CONSTRUCTIVE POLICY. SIR JOSEPH WARD'S SPEECHES, . AND HIS FINAL MANIFESTO, WERE A SAD DISAPPOINTMENT TO THE PROGRESSIVES." To-day the Government and its friends aTo shouting vogue but enthusiastic things about the Government's policy, as they did in 1908 before the election. And as'in 1908, 60 they will admit the truth after tho election, When they count their slain on Friday morning next and tho further list of their politically dead on next Friday week, tho truth will out again, and they will say, as in 1908, that the trouble ma due to the fact that the Government - "went to the country without anything in the shape of a constructive policy." The public cannot bs fooled thie time. It hot forad the GottniEtcat out It bovs ite trirfta.