The New Zealand Times. MONDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 1913. THE LAND SHORTAGE

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVII, Issue 8356, 17 February 1913, Page 6

The New Zealand Times. MONDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 1913. THE LAND SHORTAGE

‘Those people who have seen tlio rather fragmentary items of information so far vouchsafed by the Government concerning the loan noiv being raised in London will have noted that part of the money is required for land settlement. Mr Massey is responsible for this assertion. This means that the self-styled Reform party is unable to resist the inexorable logic of facts. It has to admit that, after all, there is spell a thing as land monopoly, and that the State is hound to take some measures to get back a portion of the territory secured by the few early - oomers in order to distribute it among those who have none. For this small mercy wo should perhaps be thankful, although the history of the Conservatives will not allow .anybody to hope for adequate action in the desired direction. In fact, nobody can ever quite know what to expect from Mi Massey in regard to the land question. Professing most loudly and frequently the doctrine of “Settlement, close settlement, and more settlement” (or something like that), the present Prime Minister has spent the whole of his political life in the company of the squatters. With their interests he has allowed himself to be closely and unquestionably identified. In this way we can well imagine that whatever his personal disposition , in favour of a more equitable and reasonable apportionment of the lands of New Zealand, and as to the opportunities that should be offered for a better -system of occupation, Mr Massey has permitted bad. influences to warp his judgment and generally to lead him astray. Wo say this because the Prime Minister’s public utterances on the land problem suggest nothing so much as a mind bewildered and confused, probably by too tortuous counsel. Tins is clearly an unfortunate position for the leader of any party to occupy. It must ultimately lead the party into a morass of difficulties; but that is of no importance compared with the serious public mischief involved. What is Mr Massey’s land policy? That is what wo desire to know, but cannot discover. Loud shouts of “Security of tenure,” “More settlement t ” “Freehold for ever,” and the familiar gag about the vine and figtree are all very well in their way as election stock-in-trade in lieu of. more substantial fare. That phase, however, is past. Mr Massey is at the head of. the Government and_ of the Lands Ministry, and it is pertinent to ask if he has any practical proposals to offer in order to lessen the yawning chasm between the land supply and demand. If we examine this gentleman’s public utterances, what do wo find ? Let us take some of his most important speeches within recent years. Speaking in August, 1911, during the Address-in-Reply debate, as leader of the Opposition, Mr Massey endeavoured to meot a statement that the land in occupation is in too few hands by saying: “During the recess I travelled from Auckland to Southland, and I say, without fear of contradiction from anyone who knows the position, that there is enough Crown and native land in New Zealand to keep the population going for ten years to come. There is no getting away from it.” Here is a definite assertion that what the country suffers from is not the private monopolisation of land, but the withholding from settlement of vast areas in thd hands of the State and of the Maoris. Clearly, if that he so the graduated tax and the Lands for Settlement Act are unnecessary, and mischievous because unnecessary. If Mr Massey was right in his view, as stated in 1911, then all the Parliaments of twenty years have been wrong, for they have aimed at correcting evils that were nonexistent. But in July, 1912, eleven after Mr Massey said we had a sufficient supply of Crown and native land for the requirements of a decade, we had this gentleman in a totally different frame of mind. Again speaking on the Address-in-Reply, and still with all the responsibility of Opposition leader, he said this: “There is a proposal to increase the [land] taxation. Now, before I go further I wish to make my position clear. Mv position is the same to-day as it was at the election, and as it was years before the election. It is this; I am willing to increase the taxation to any amount necessary to provide land for settlement where settlement is required. That is clear.” As. Mr Massey said, “that is clear.” It is also clear that his statement of the previous year had been abandoned. Last week, however, when the Prime Minister was at Marion, he made references in the course of a speech to farmers to the loau Mr Allen is raising in London, and declared that its purpose, in part, is to provide “funds necessary for the promotion of land set-

tlement,” for “the purchase of lands for settlement.” Thus in eighteen short months wo have been told by Mr Massey, in effect—(l) That there is no monopoly of land save by the natives and the Crown; (2) that he is prepared to go to any lengths in order to compel private owners, by taxation, to disgorge their lands for the good of the people; (3) that instead of forcing subdivision by taxation he is borrowing money with which to buy land to subdivide. Could anything be more elusive and more discouraging. So far as the public has been permitted to know, the only definite lino of policy the self-styled Reform Government is committed to in regard to the land question is to convert leaseholds into freeholds at any cost. There may be a few votes in this, but it will most certainly not yield a single extra acre of land towards satisfying the ever-swelling needs of the great army of landless people. The allegedly increased schedule of graduated land taxation put forward last session with such a flourish of trumpets is an obvious fake. How could it .be otherwise in view of the composition of the “Reform” party? But the fact that money is being borrowed to buy land shows that the pressure of demand is too great to bo ignored even by Mon-opoly-in-Office, or by the gentleman who declared eighteen months ago that we had ten years’ supply without asking a European owner for an acre.