A POLITICAL SPEECH.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXX, Issue 8431, 1 May 1907, Page 3

A POLITICAL SPEECH.

MR MASSEY IN TARANAKI. CRITICISM OF THE GOVERNMENT.

NEW PLYMOUTH, April 29. Mr Massey, leader of the Opposition, addressed the electors at the Theatre Royal to-night, The hall was packed. Mr Massey was in good speaking form, particularly at the outset. He spoke rapidly and made his points clear. The interruptions, which came almost entirely from one quarter, were met with excellent repartee. Towards the close the speech rather degenerated, becoming a general hotchpotch of anti-Social-ism and other subjects. The majority of the audience was manifestly in favour of the speaker. The antiLand Bill resolution was declared carried without the "noe"~" vote being taken. If it was called fur, the re - quest was inaudible. Mr E. Dockrill, Mayor of New Plymouth, occupied the chair. Mr H. Okey, the Opposi tioii candidate, was among those on the platform. Mr Massey said that in the Government's policy he found little to criticise apart from the Land Bill. Most of the Government's measures were introduced to give effect to the suggestions of the Opposition As instances, he mentioned the .extension of the Audit Department's functions, the adoption of the principle of sinking funds, and the charging of the cost of maintenance of roads to revenue instead of to the Public Works Fund, Which mainly consisted of borrowed money. He also claimed credit to his party for the National Annuities Bill and for proposing an extension of the Advances to Settlers Act in the direction of enabling the occupiers of homes ' under the Workers' Dwellings Act to obtain the freehold. He complained that the Workers' Dwellings Act had not'been made to apply to country districts and towns as' well as to the cities. Since he had last spoken in New Plymouth the Ministry had been reconstructed. The members of the new Cabinet, he maintained, had not risen to the occasion. (Applause.) According to the promises made about eight months ago, there was to be no more extravagance or corruption, no more improper appointments, no more party or political influence. Speaking of the recent appointments to the Legislative Council, with the one honourable exception from New Plymonth, he did not know that they were not worse than those of the preceding Government. The administration of the railways was such that there was loss not only ti the people who should use the railways, but to the colony generally. As to the administration of the' Public Works Department, Taranaki had been seething with discontent at it. The worst of the Government's transgressions was that it had taken advantage of the weakness of the Opposition in the House last session • to try to place the Land Bill on the statute book. There were two things absolutely essential to the good of the country—security of tenure and improvement in the means' of com ■numcafcion: roads and railways. The Government had attacked the one and neglected the other. Dr Findla.y had called the Crown lands'* a "poor "omnant." The poor remnant was seventeen million acres. The" Bill proposed to' do away with the optional system in the tenure of Crown lands. The Opposition had stopped the passage of the Bill last session—firstly, ■ ecause it proposed to do away with the optional tenure, secondly because it was a backward step in the direction of Socialism, and land nationalisation, and thirdly, because the ..people of the country had not been consulted upon its principles. It was not necessary to emphasise before a Taranaki audience the impossibility of' inducing successful settlement without security of tenure. It was the" desire for a secure tenure that induced the earlier settlers to go into the backblocks and carve their homes out of the bush. The point of the Land, Bill missed was that incentive was an essential part of human nature. The freehold was necessary as an incentive to cultivation of land. A man with the freehold would make a better fight than a leaseholder, for a man would fight better for his home than for a botirdinghousel (Laughter.) Better settlers would be obtained bv maintaining the optional tenure. Mr McNab had stated during his visit to the Auckland district that the refractory land in those parts would be settled by allowing it to be occupied rent free for a number of years. The position would be, that when the settler had mastered this refractory land the Government inspectors would come along and say, "You have be3h industrious, my friend—and just on that account the time has come for you to pay rent." If Mr McNab thought he was going to settle the refractory land in that way he made the ,most serious mistake of his life. (Applause.) If one body of settlers were forced to remain leaseholders while the others were freeholders, there would grow up a class distinction. Freeholders and leaseholders would be patricians and plebeians. That was not the aim of a democratic country. In criticising the £50,000 limit he pointed out that '■ it would not affect a single estate in Taranaki, and only one in Auckland. Members of the Government were possessors of freeholds themselves and appreciated the privilege, but were unwilling to extend the privilege to others. The Oppositionists were also possessors'bf freeholds, but were willing to extend the freehold to those who had it not. . Replying to Dr. Findlay, Mr Massey denied the implication that he had saidjhe favour of increasing the graduated land tax. What he had said was that even an increase in the graduated land tax would be preferable to Mr McNab's cast-iron limitations, because it would give the landpwner a freer hand in dealing with property. What was the need for limitations now when there were seven or eight million acres of ' unoccupied native land and some seventeen million acres of Crown lands to be settled? The effect of the' Government's proposed restrictions would decrease the value of country landed securities, while leaving the city lands as they were. If country holdings were to be limited, city properties should also be limited. By the endowment proposals the Government would get £184,0Q0 per annum gross revenue to support the

departments for which the endowments were to be reserved. The net revenue would not be more than £150,000 per annum, and it would not be increased for sixty-six years. With this £150,000 the Government intended to support departments which cost a million and a quarter a year, and which in 66 years would cost five millions and a quarter a year! It made no difference to the departments whether they got their revenue from endowments or from other sources. He objected to the proposal to set aside these endowments, as the Government proposed, for the reason that it was intended to eliminate the optional tenure. Mr McNab, in the Auckland district, had spoken of the benefits derived in Otago by the education endowments. Mr McNab had omitted to mention that.the authorities had come to the Government a few years ago, and said, "For goodness sake, take this land from us." The Government had taken the land at its nominal value. He considered money endowments were right, but country endowments were wrong, not only in the interests of the institutions endowed, but in the interests of people who might settle on the land. Mr Massey quoted from speeches of the Hon. G. Fowlds, the Hon. J. A. Millar, the Hon. W. Hall-Jones, and others, to show that the policy of the Government was io abolish the freehold tenure and introduce periodical revaluation. He believed the proposed revaluation was simply a trick to rob the settlers of their rights. The Socialists and the single-taxers had joined hands, and were "running" the present Government. At the "conclusion, a vote of thanks was accorded to Mr Massey, with a resolution in favour of the freehold. Replying, Mr Massey said it was the duty of the Government to put up a leasehold candidate for the coming election, while the Opposition put up a freehold man. He was prepared to abide the issue.—N.Z. Times.