LABOUR LAND POLICY.

Auckland Star, Volume LVIII, Issue 114, 17 May 1927, Page 5

LABOUR LAND POLICY.

"FIRST PLANK REMAINS."

PRIME MINISTER'S CRITICISM.

SINCERITY QUESTIONED.

(By Telegraph—Own Correspondent.) DARGAVILLE, Monday. Mr. Coates, in his speech to-night, examined, in some detail, what he termed the "latest effort on the part of Labour to " ingratiate themselves with "the men on the land." He remarked that it was very evident that the new Labour land policy was the work of amateur craftsmen, and it was convincing proof that the party, recognising the absurdity of that political abortion known as the "usehold" policy, had thrown it overboard. What Might Be Done? The first plank in the Labour party's general platform, however, remained, viz., "the socialisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange." The objective of this must include eventually the abolition of private ownership in land. Labour's new land policy provided certainly for "full recognition of owners' interest in all land, including tenure, right of sale, transfer and bequest," but there was nothing to prevent a Labour Government, once in power, from altering its : policy in the teeth of public opinion and by the sacrifice of pledges. There had 1 been instances of this in some of the ! Australian States. Although the Labour party had jet- 1 tisoned its "usehold" policy of two ' years ago, there was room for suspicion i that sincerity in amending its land ' policy was not so much the important ] factor as trimming its sails in accord ; with political expediency. 1 As there had been no disavowal of the main plank in Labour's platform, viz., the socialisation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange— the incongruity of urging the principle of private Ownership must be transparent. The Labour party has merely deleted the land planks which they loudly advocated in the Franklin byelection and at the last*general election, and has substituted new planks in order, not to disguise its real objects so far as land holding was concerned, but the method it would adopt if given the chance to achieve its aims. It still hoped to bring about land nationalisation to square with its socialistic ideals, ! under which private ownership would have but a small place. "Very Little That Is New." Except in one or two instances, ' Labour had apparently adopted the i land system already on the Statute : Book, and its new policy in reality contained very little at all that was 1 new. The policy smelt of opportunism 1 and vote-catching. It was also a flagrant example of inconsistency. To be logical, t-he party should abandon the ' preamble to its political platform, but in deference to the views held by a large section of its adherents, it dared not do this. "It has often been pointed out that many of the evils existing to-day in our land administration arise not from inherent faults in our system but from post-war world conditions general in their effects, and also from reactions which usually follow in the way of •boom' conditions locally," said Mr. Coates. The primary producers of New Zealand will, without doubt, look deeply into the ingredients of this vaunted land policy put forward glibly by the Labour party, particularly as land 1 nationalisation still remains as the basis of the programme, by means of which J these Socialistic champions cunningly 1 hope to divert their support." 1