The Taihape Daily Times AND WAIMARINO ADVOCATE MONDAY, MAY 15, 1916. A LAND SCANDAL.

Taihape Daily Times, Volume 8, Issue 113, 15 May 1916, Page 4

The Taihape Daily Times AND WAIMARINO ADVOCATE

MONDAY, MAY 15, 1916. A LAND SCANDAL.

(With which is incorporated The Tai hape Post and 'Waimarino News.)

During the discussions on the Address jn Reply, in the House, on Thursday, the land policy and also* land administration of the Massey Ministry received stinging and convincing criticism from Mr. Anstey. Dealing with the question of providing land for returned soldiers, Mr. Anstey stated that speculators were preferred to soldiers, and he went on to prove his statement right up to the hilt. When he had finished with the subject Mr. Massey was speechless only in so far that he tried to push whatever blame he could on to the Land Board. But this is so common a device of the Massey Government that even some Reform journals, let alone independent newspapers, are ashamed to support the outrageous dealings with land that have become all too frequent. There was land that should have been reserved for the soldiers that were coming back to this country that had been disposed of, in the most wicked way, amongst speculators, land grabbers, aggregators and absentees and the Prime Minister had deliberately connived at it. Mr. Anstey instanced the Benmore estate, of one hundred thousand acres; this had been cut up into forty runs, only twelve of which had been reserved for soldiers. He had personally gone over the whole estate and had no hesitation in saying it was remarkably suitable for cutting up. The action of Mr. Massey in his disregard for returned soldiers in connection with this land had been the cause of meetings of protest and condemnation all over Otago and the Minister* took no notice whatever. This utter disregard of the wishes and opinions of the people, in many cases amounting to contempt, is a new attitude for a New Zealand Government to take up. We

have experienced the coddling of Atkinson, the cozening of Vogel and now it is the contempt of Massey. Mr. Massey's supporters, said Mr. Anstey, had been moving heaven and earth to get land disposed of while the soldiers were away fighting for this country and could not compete for the land. Among those who had got runs were ladies, and surely if ladies could live on the land it was good enough for soldiers. But one of these ladies was a member of a very wealthy family which held an enormous area of Crown lands and educatioal reserves. There was a beautiful little run, at a very low rent, and it had been sold within the last fortnight, while meetings condemning this giving away of the country to those already holding more than they should do, were being held and resolutions of protest carried all over Oiago. At the Government sale of the Benmore land a run had been sold to one who already cwned 900 .acres, another 500 acres and half a dozen purchasers held similar areas. No less than three of the runs had gone to men bearing the same name as a member of the Land Board. Mr. Anstey did not say there was anything wrong about that, but if it had been reserved for returned soldiers these three could not have got it. Somebody was responsible for having this land sold while men were at the front and the Government was culpable in that they took no steps whatever to prevent it. Perhaps the most scathing part of Mr Anstey's indictment was that in which the Government had allowed one of these runs to be sold to a Mr. T. Hall, one of a family of three sons of military age, none of whom had offered their services to the Government and the Empire. They were all living at home working on the farm; they had no dependents, had openly sneered at recruiting and disturbed recruiting meetings. Hall had married on the Friday previous to the sale to qualify for purchasing the land. Was there no collusion, in this? Did the Board or the Government know nothing of this? That is impossible; the man was hooted out of the hall. One run of fourteen thousand acres was given to one wealthy man without competition while the land set aside for the soldiers was the worst on the estate, that which a man couldn't get a living on. The whole of the good land was f.ung down to be gambled for by speculators and aggregators, handed over while our young fellows were fighting for their country. Land in other parts of Netl Zealand was being similarly dealt with, .and it was "the Premier's,, duty to i take steps to prevent it. Other runs that were falling in should be sub-divided fcr the men who were, returning from the front! K lsfS more convincing: indictment of Mr. Massey's land policy has beeiv made ' in ' theHouse jthan that by Mr. Anstey; if nothing} else it gives ample grounds 'for thought on the whole land policy and administration of the Reform Government and the utter disregard, if not contempt, shown by the Prime Minister and other members of his '••ibinet for the wishes and rights of .'h e people. His policy is openly declared "to be positively wicked and the House applauds it. No doubt there are good reasons 'for wanting no dismssicn during the present session that does not pertain to prosecution of the war, but the people of this land have a thought for something more humane than making the rich richer and the poor poorer, to say nothing of an evjdent criminal indifference to the lives of men who are now risking their all to prevent the land falling into the > hands of Germany which they will not tolerate. Mr. Anstey's I speech on the Address in Reply in j Hansard will make very, interesting i reading.