AN EVASIVE ANSWER

Evening Post, Volume CIV, Issue 144, 15 December 1922, Page 6

AN EVASIVE ANSWER

In a communication which we publish to-day, the National Secretary of the New Zealand Labour Party enunciates the principles of Labour's land policy. The statement is interesting, but not. as a reply to the"questions which " The Post" has asked concerning, the policy. We asked for information concerning the methods to be employed in putting the land policy into operation. We wished specifically to be told upon what basis the valuation representing the present owner's interest would be made, ; how community-created values would be separated from producer-created wealth, how the State would dispose of lands surrendered to it, and how the owner could be deprived of his right to sell in a free market without confiscation. To none of these questions is an answer given; nor is any attempt made to .give an answer. Labour proposes. to do certain things, a^nd when it is asked "How?" it replies only that it wil) do what it has said. And where it has made/two proposals which do not agree the -party seemingly declines to say which it adheres to. It is asked, "Which will you do?" and it replies, -"Yes." The Labour progranfme proposes that no land shall be sold or transferred except to the . State; its manifesto tones this down to>a declaration that the State shall be the sole medium of land transfer, thus eliminating the speculative element. The latest communication adds even more water to the red painfc of the original land policy. The third principle of the policy, it is stated, is "to eliminate as far as possible the speculative element."

The latest declaration indeed appears to be nothing more than a further attempt to water down the original All-red policy, which was frankly Socialistic. By emphasising principles with some of which all progressive people i will agree, Labour hopes to direct attention from earlier Socialistic professions and impracticable programmes. It is hoped to' -persuade the people that the programme is really quite mild and entirely beneficial. But Labour under-estimates the intelligence of the people. They are not ,to be deluded by a.change of garment i«to the belief that there has

been a change of heart. Such methods only awaken suspicion: If the Labour land policy is changed, if Labour has realised the impraoticability of its programme, let it say so frankly; and let it say with equal frankness what the new programme is to be and how long it is to be the programme. '