THE Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY. TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 1906.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXIX, Issue 8234, 11 September 1906, Page 4

THE Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY. TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 1906.

The land proposals of the Government, as foreshadowed in the Finanoial Statement, and, subsequently, further explained by the Minister for Lands (Hon. R. MoNab), are naturally the subject of considerable discussion throughout the country. During the course of the Budget debate, Mr W. H. llerries complained

that tbe Government bad no land policy, but we entirely dissent from this opinion. It seems to as that Mr MoNab's proposals constitute a very decided policy, and so far from there being no policy, we think that tbey might more fittingly be described as too muoh of a policy altogether. ! Writing recently on the constitution of the Ward Cabinet, we expressed the view that the present Government would, in a comparatively shprt spaae of time, create a strong, healthy Opposition, and the land proposals, as outlined, confirm us further in that belief. It may, perhaps, be said that it is a semi town versus country policy, but we think it can be fairly criticised on very much broader lines than those of mere party. Oousidered as a whole, tihere is dome reason to believe that the policy will be°favourably received throughout the couni try. That a proposal is popular is, no doubt, sufficient oause to advocate it in the eyes of tbe politician whose first arid only thought is as to what is expedient. The patriotic politician, of course, would not contend for any proposal, however popular it might be, unless he thought it were in the best interests of the country. So far as the land proposals of the Government are concerned, we believe that they are a perfectly honest effort on the part of the Minister for Lands to deal with a most complicated question. *****

Mr Ma&sey contends that the proposals are of an anti-freehold character, and this contention id largely justifiable. For instance, tbe Government propose to sell no more freehold, far, says Sir Joseph Ward, "we propose setting aside as an endowment all the ordinary Crown lands now unsold or unleased." The Government, therefore, are opposed to selling the freehold to any man; in this respect, admittedly, they are against the freehold. Ihe Government are also opposed to Crown tenants, who hoU laud under the lease-in-perpet.uity system and other systems, obtaining the freehold at either the original or present value of the land that they occupy. The Government are willing that such tenants shall have the right to convert their leases into the proposed 66 years lease, and shall have tbe right to temporarily purchase ninetenths of snoh land, but as to granting Grown tenants tbe freehold—no! We come now to the "freehold" proposals of the Government. These oonsist in limiting the capital unimproved value of any estate to £50,000, and compelling some sixty-three land-owners in the country to dispose of any land they may hold in exoesa of the value mentioned, within a period of ten years from the date of the Bill becoming law. ***** It is, perhaps, unnecessary to observe that the new xMinister for Lands is a Scotchman, and he seems to be possessed of that dry humour which is proverbial with the sons of Scotia. During the .budget debate, he deolaied that "the Leader of the Opposition made out the Government was goiQg to kill the freehold. They were going to provide 3ore freehold in the next teu years than previous Governments had provided during the last ten And this was going to

be achieved without the expenditure of a single peauy out of the Treasury." A curious "freehold" policy indeed! It is now sotr6 time ago since the Minister for Lands, then only an ordinary member of Parliament, urget? that tliere should be a limitation of value, and the proposal seems to us to bo a good one. New Zealand ia not a suitable country for "big raea"—this has beun recognised for years past, and the only objection that may reasonably be offered against Mr MoNab's proposal is whether the principle is a good one. The proposed limitation of value is £50,000, capital unimproved value, to-day, but will the law remain at that? A few years later the limitation of value may be plaoed at £20,000, and, perhaps, further on again in the history of this democratic country, at £IO,OOO.

* * * * * It mast, however, be generally admitted that the principle is not a new one. It may differ id application, but the principle is the same as that underljing tho compulsory resumption of estates. There is no difference iu the prinoiple or spirit of the law that compels a laudowner to sell to the Crown or to private individuals. Coercion, in eaoh case, is brought to bear in the interests of the country and at the approval of the people as a whole. To revert, however, to the freehold aspeot of the question, there can bo no objection to, in fact there are many good reasons why the freehold should be granted to those so desiring it, provided aggregation or acquirement of large estates is prevented. The Government's policy is certainly a leasehold polioy, with one "sop" thrown in to palliate freeholders, but, though Mr MaNab's proposals may become law, we do not think the Government would care to suggest that it would be in the interests of the oountry to carry out the prinoiple that underlies the majority of the proposals to its logioal conclusion.