THE Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 9, 1913. LAND BILL DEBATE.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXV, Issue 10713, 9 October 1913, Page 4

THE Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 9, 1913. LAND BILL DEBATE.

The debate on the Land Laws Amendment BiH in the House of Representatives has been remarkable chiefly for the lack of knowledge displayed by members concerning the problem which mast vitally nffeotß the progress of the countiy. Those Oppositionists who have set themselves the task of criticising the measure have floundered about so hopelessly that their arguments—if they have any that are well-founded—have been lost in a 'naze of meaningless expression. The attitude of the Opposition is apparently inspired with the hope of discounting in the cities the value of a measure that is designed to bring about rural activity, and produce peace and plenty in the Dominion, j It iis characteristic of the so-called "Liberal" party that the views expressed by the front-benchers are diametrically opposed. Those who represent rural constituencies' have been forced to the admission that the ideal tenure is the freehold, whilst the city representatives have clung tenaciously to the doctrine of land nationalisation, and have endeavoured to convince their own colleagues that the Government is perpetrating something in the nature of an outrage by permitting the conversion of leases-in-perpetuity into freeholds. Mr 11. McCJallum, the effervescent and frothy BKWiber for Wairau, declared kimself a strong freeholder, and proceeded to flagellate the Ooverrmen l

because it proposed giving the fee feimple to those lands which the State had really parted with for all xiine, and over which it has no right of taxation. Mr G. Witty talked a lot of nonsense about the State tenants j getting into the hands of the moneylenders immediately they were granted the right of the freehold. This same Mr Witty was complaining a few days ago that the State was not affording sufficient facilities for the Crown tenants procuring advances of borrowed money from 1 the State Advances to Settlers Office. The statement of Mr Witty that "the names of Rolleston, McKenzie, Seddon, and Ward would be handed down to posterity as those who did their best for settlement and the prosperity of the country, but the name of the present •Premier would be cursed for his giving away the birthright of the people," is sufficiently humorous to make the domesticated feline die from hilarious convulsions. Mr George Laurenson did not spare the feelings of his own leader when he declared that the granting of the freehold would be written down by future historians as one of the "blackest crimes" in the history of New Zealand. It is fortunate, however, that the opinions of Mr Laurenson on this question do not count for more than the merest vote-catching clap-trap. Mr G. W. Russell was on good ground when he referred to the progress of settlement under previous Govern-, ments. Nobody can, of course, deny that a great deal of settlement has been promoted in recent years. But the astute and verbose member for Avon, M 4 not the frankness to admit j that had the Liberal Government <3ori6 | its duty there would have been fewer | large estates in the country than at present exist. The fact of the matter is that the Continuous Ministry—a Ministry that was for ever prating of its beneficent land laws —utterly, studiously, and ignominiously failed to bring tinder sub-division those large estates the existence of which its discredited member® now so loudly deplore. But that is beside the question. The Reform Government has expressed its determination to provide land for the people on the most liberal terms, and all the sophistry antf make-belieye of disgruntled Oppositionists will not impede the march of settlement. By the token, it is only fair to Mr D. Buddo, an exMinister, to state that he "considered that there were some clauses in the Bill that would be valuable." This admission is encouraging, coming from the source it dpes. So far as the debate has proceeded, the most effective criticisoi appears to have come from the Government benches. Mr J. G. Anderson, for instance, contended that the Bill did not make adequate provision for the sub-division of imprpved estates. With this contenj'tidn we .are in thorough accord, and we' sincerely hope that, before the measure reaches the Statute Book, it will be amended in such a way as to effectually deal with, this momentous problem. If no other means can be devised for producing sub-division, the graduated land tax must be substantially increased.