THE LAND QUESTION.

Auckland Star, Volume LVII, Issue 53, 4 March 1926, Page 12

THE LAND QUESTION.

(To the Editor.)

Sir,-In ycur issue of February 26, your correspondent, "C.H.N.," asks some very pertinent questions, and, in closing, remarks: -The simple truth as regards the laud is that Reform has constantly favoured the interests of individuals at the expense of the community." This is a brief and sweeping description of the Reform party's policy during the late Mr. Massey's Premiership. His political philosophy was strongly individualistic, and he evidently accepted Mr. Herbert Spenser's dictum that

•Society flourishes through the antagonism of its members." On the other hand, the late Mr. Seddon's policy was well expressed in the answer he gave to a deputation of employers who threatened to organise to combat the formation of industrial unions under his arbitration law. His answer was •I belief in the organisation of lndustiv." So far as the land question 13 ioncerned, the policy of the Liberal party was to prevent the further alienation" of Crown lands, but the voice ot the Reform charmer was too strong and its appeal to the gambling instincts tucfpeded. Then followed the war, with its fictitious prices and the party found it very convenient to have high valuations in" order to yield the revenue necessary to meet interest charges on their enormous borrowing. Increased production so very necessary now, is hampered by interest charges on fictitious values" and until values and wages are settled to allow of profitable production the land swapping business will be more profitable than ploughing. It may, of course, be contended that speculation takes place just as easily with leased hind as with freehold. This is true only to a limited degree—for with restrictive legislation and residential conditions and a Government determined to safeguard the interests of the State against the selfish encroachments of individuals—various forms of monopoly are discouraged. The political philosophy of the Reform party is ethically reactionary, and much of the present moral depravity and selfishness may be traced to its effect. Land gambling, totalisatoritis, art unionism, with their concomitant industrial unrest and antagonisms, are some of the weeds that need cutting out of "God's Own Country" just as much as the blackberry, This vaunted individualistic philosophy has been tried, and found wanting. Society exists by the co-operation and combination of its members not by their antagonisms —and to quote again, '"Where no vision is, the people fail."—l am, etc., E.N.D. (To the Editor.) Str,—Replying to Mr. E. C. Shepherd's letter of February 24. Firstly, the tone of his letter is admirable, and the case he makes out for Reform requires a reasoned answer. Controversy conducted on these lines means public education on this most vital of all national questions. Mr. Shepherd considers my charge is ! unfair against the Reform Government, when I state they are responsible for , the disaster which, has overwhelmed the 1 country by their mishandling of the j legislative machine as applied to land 1 and land problems. He argues from two I standpoints—(l) That the Government { were not entirely to blame for inflated j land values. (2) That the soldier puri chases were justified considering the j special circumstances at the time. In ' answering the first question, a student I must follow closely the history which culminated in the almost perfect land system during the Liberal regime from 1891 to 1912, the fruits of which produced prosperity in every household despite the fact that during .those prosperous years prices for our primary products were comparatively low. Why was this? Because the Liberals, with, tteir 1 perfect system, used the only weapon known to economic science, viz., graduI a.ted land tax, with prudence, to keep land values normal. On several occasions the land speculators tried to create a boom during the Liberal rule, but were promptly checkmated by the judicious lifting of this tax on unhnprovedliand values. Now, an examination of land legislation since 1912 shows ttat the baronial party known as Reform, the I successors of that chief of land gamblers Edward Gibbon Wakefield, deliberately smashed the foundation principles of I that magnificent Liberal land system. The land boom years were 1920, 1921, and 1922, in reality. In the realm of I land economics, if the Government wants to pour benzine on the flames of reckless land speculation they need only raise the unimproved land values inordinately and withhold the weapon of checking land inflation by not using judiciously the tax on these values. This is exactly what the Reform Government did, The Liberals wisely kept the equilibrium between unimproved values and improvements, and kept land values thereby normal. Their triennial valuations amounted to six to ten millions, but Reform, in the period 1919-1922, raised the unimproved value £56.000,000. Mr. Massey and his friends did this to keep the national assets high for borrowing purposes, and apparently were economically ignorant of the disastrous results j which must and did inevitably follow, j whereas had the Liberal policy been followed no such land boom eoujd have j happened.

Regarding the second question raised, no one objected to the Eoldier land settlement scheme, but the public are dissatisfied with the carrying out of that scheme. The Government having blundered, continued to hoodwink the" public after they were well aware of the great failure by their leaders publicly proclaiming that the soldiers were paying their way and doing well, when they knew full well the reverse had happened and their scheme was a complete failure. That was said in Roskill election from the Reform platform in December, 1922 and the electors were grieviouslv misled thereby. I say positively the soldier purchases were scandalous from two points of view. I have the list of vendors in.-the Auckland province, with the area purchased and prices paid. I say positively no fair-minded citizen can mad the vendors' names without sayin<* 05 per cent of them are big Reformers" and the prices paid were absurd and ridiculously high having regard to all circumstances, including the peak of boo mprices for our staple products The result is proved since the revaluation, which personally I had fathered into existence, was made, that several millions of taxpayers' money has gone into the pockets of these Reformers, and hundreds of unfortunate soldiers were •ruined and nearly all the rest have become serfs to the Government as their mortgagee for the rest of their days.— I am, etc.,

A. HALL SKELTON.