Ashburton Guardian Magna est Veritas et Prævalebit SATURDAY, OCTOBER 24, 1925. LABOUR'S LAND POLICY.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume XLVI, Issue 10531, 24 October 1925, Page 4

Ashburton Guardian Magna est Veritas et Prævalebit SATURDAY, OCTOBER 24, 1925. LABOUR'S LAND POLICY.

With the near approach of the clay of decision at the Polls the " electors are seriously weighing the respective policies placed before the country by the three parties striving for political power. In an electorate so largely rural as Ashburton it is natural that any platform concerning land should be examined with especial care and interest, the fate of the whole policy depending largely upon the acceptability of that particular plank. The Labour Party is making a feature of its land policy, and in view of Mr Harle's speech in Ashburton this week discussion of the subject is opportune. In their endeavour to impress upon the people the need for a change in the land system of the Dominion Labour candidates throughout the country—following the example of their leader — have condemned the mortgage system as inimical to the best interests of the farmer and of the Dominion generally. The whole tenor of their contention .is that because the farmer pays interest he is being oppressed and driven off the land. Herein lies the first fallacy. Even the framers of the most elaborate systems of State ownership have not succeeded in eliminating capital from the problem —though the reality has been presented in various disguises—and the New Zealand Labour | Party does not fare any better than its fellows. Capital invested, whether in land or in any other undertaking, must return interest if the venture is to be profitable. If the capital belongs to a man who holds a mortgage as security he takes interest outright. If the title is clear, the farmerowner receives the interest, just as he would were his money placed elsewhere. If the State owns the

land, interest is still payable in the form of rent. Even Mr Holland and those who think with him admit this axiom,and nominate 5 per cent, as a fair return. On the party's own showing, £569,000,000 worth of occupied lands carry mortgages of an aggregate value of £270,000,000 necessitating an annual interest payment of £17,500,000. But under

the labour proposal the charges, at 5 per rent., would amount to £28,000,000. Labour will of course reply that the whole occupied area does not carry mortgage, but unless the whole country came under the proposed scheme an unfair distinction would at once be made between two sections of people. Further.

dealing only with the encumbered lands,'either the State would confiscate the mortgage, or it would compensate the mortgagee. The first course is unthinkable, and the second impossible. The Labour Party asserts that the land is held not on freehold but on mortgage-

hold, but the fact of the matter is that of the balance of equity of the iotul value of £567,000,01)0 is no less than £52 7s per cent, of the security. Undoubtedly there are cases of hardship under the mortgage system, but the result of its operation as a whole lias undoubtedly been of benefit to the farmer. How many have obtained their chance of success and assured prosperity through being able to finance a capital advance on the security of their holdings. And how many, also, have found it more profitable to work a farm on a mortgage than to have it free. The Labour proposal simply means forced leasehold or forced mortgage held by the State, instead of a private individual, without the right—at least the

Labour platform does not provide for it—to raise capital for working* expenses secured against the occupier's interest in the leasehold. The party proposes to substitute for the present system a tenure based on occupancy and use. The immediate objective, it is announced, is the compulsory acquisition of estates valued at £20,000 and over, which are apparently to be parcelled out under this tenure, while all land on which State advances are made in future are to be subjected to it also. But what about the mortgages ? How is the policy to touch them ? It is proposed that the State will make the transfer of 'land cheap and easy, but that does not pay off the mortgage. It is promised that closer settlement of large estates will commence at once, but that pays off nobody's mortgage. It is promised that

land will be transmissable by inheritance —on what tenure it is not stated—but still the mortgage stays untouched. The fact is that the official platform of the Labour Party contains a policy which describes a complete system of land nationalisation, though political exigencies have led to the truth being disguised. None of the explanations or elaborations yet is- ' sued have disposed of the contention that the objective is the complete extinction of freehold in both town and country. The farmer will realise the significance of a scheme which must eventually mean that he can never own the land he tills. The town dweller should realise in tuim that when the freehold is gone—as the diehards of the La.bour Party mean it should go—the pride of ownership can never be his. In asking the electorates to endorse the formula it has drawn up, the Labour Party asks New'Zealand to embark upon a highly-danger-ous experiment, risking its prosperity and well-being in a manner which no country can afford to do.