LIBERALISM AND THE REFORM PARTY.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1378, 2 March 1912, Page 3

LIBERALISM AND THE REFORM PARTY.

Sir,—There aro many reasons why tho Reform party should mako a fuller declaration of'policy at the present time, and I shall endeavour, with your permission, to givo au. outline ot a policy which is consistent with Mr. Massoy's principles and which, will, I believe, shunt the Millar-W-ard crowd out of favour with tho great majority of New Zealanders. My own belief is that .Mr. Massoy is no reactionary, and that his policy is one which will allow of a certain amount of Labour legislation. This is a point which needs emphasising, for the opposition which the Reform- party offers to irregular and unlawful action ou the part of certain furious zealots, as in the case of tho recent train strike,' is apt to make a largo section of the workers imagine that tho Reform party is opposed to any. legitimate action on the part of trade, unionists to belter their condition. Now, as I understand the matter, tho Reform party 6lands exactly noutral, between employer and employee, and that party is perfectly willing to leave tho workers tho right to strike if Ihcv choose, but of.courso if tho law is broken it must tako action. Now I desiro to point out that it was tho Liberal party which doprivod tho workers of tho right to strike With regard to such matters as factory legislation, I know of nothing in the principles of the Reform parly which would exclude salutary amendments to tho Workers' Compensation Act, such as would confer increased benefits upon tho workers. I may instance one point in this connection which shows how very illiberal some ■ of our so-called Liberal politicians really are. in (ho Workers' Compensation Act, under tho influence of Mr. Millar 1 understand, a clnuso was inserted whereby injured workers who were not domiciled in New Zealand were excluded from the benefits of tho Act. The Act was thus less liberal to tho worker thon the common low. Thii was Burolr an imtano* of protectionism run mad, 1

whloh the Reform party would never countenance. Then on the land question I desire to point out that thoro ib nothing in the Millar-Ward party's platform which tho Reformers could not take up. The object of tho graduated land tax is to break up largo holdings of land. Now this is tho very thing for which the Reform, parly should strive, inasmuch as the'graduated laud tax will havo tho effect of increasing tho number and consequently tho power of tho owners of land. It will give us a strong agricultural population who will bo n stout harrier to ail kinds of wild-cat schemes. Then tho owners of largo holdings cannot 1m injured since they will get cash for the surplus value of their holdings. Many of them will have objections to tho process of cutting up, but they will gradually come to acquiesce in this policy, when they recognise that it is the fixed policy of the State to encourage a largo number of small and prosperous settlers who will offer a strong barrier to extreme and ill-advised legislation. Then as regards the ordinary land-tax, the increase in tho exemption is a point in tho Government's policy which the Reform party has long favoured and which Mr, Massey should not bo too proud to support. l)y its promise in that.very queer Governor's Speech, the Ward-Millar party is now committed to raising tho exemption from ,£SOO to .£IOOO. Tho Reform party Bhould instantly make a declaration in favour of this exemption. It is a tribute to tho manner in which tho Reform party has undermined tho "Liberal" foundations, that Ward-Millftrism has boea compelled to abandon this once cardinal principle of Seddonism.

As regards such legislation as old age pensions tho Reform party can frankly confess any errors ofi tho past, and can support and oxtend the system Bince it docs not in any way undermine .the fundamental principles of socioty. Similarly there is nothing to prcvont the Reform party from adopting palliative legislation, so long as it does not destroy the incentive to individual effort. Lastly, _ as regards trusts and '.'combines, it is so obviously necessary to re* strain them from operating to' the detriment of tho producer and consumer alike, that; a stato of such conservative- tendencies in legislation as tho United States has had tho Sherman Anti-Trust Law since 1890, and that law ha« had 1 no injurious effect upon trade. I nm sure that if the policy outlined' above wore boldly adopted by tie Sefornv party such men as Mr. Atmore would' be bound to support them and to ©ppcet> the Government.—l am, etc., OBSERVES,