LAND, LABOUR, AND MORTGAGES

Evening Post, Volume CVII, Issue 86, 10 April 1924, Page 9

LAND, LABOUR, AND MORTGAGES

COURTING THE WORKING FARMER.

The AVelfare League writes: —

The Socialist Labour Party of New Zealand evidently take the workingfarmer to be a country lass who can be won with many soft words and most fulsome promises. . Of course, if the promises are incapable of fulfilment, no action for breach t .of promise can lie against this unscrupulous wooer as the party is responsible to none but himself. . The first promise made is that the Socialist Party will supply a system of land-tenure which will relieve .the working farmer of jill his trouble. ) Here it is from the party's programme:— . A land tenure based on occupancy and use, which shall secure to the working farmer the full fruits of his labour arid exertions. What the. word "exertions" '• there means, no man knowelh. When asked' it ,this tenure is a'freehold or leasehold Mr. H. E. Holland, M.P., and his colleagues decline to say/ "It is a tenure of occupancy'and .use" is all they wifi answer. Farmers know that both freeholders -and leaseholders occupy and use —what, then, is this now undefined tenure ? It is promised to give the working farmer "the full fruits' of - his labour," but how is he to know that it will do so unless it is explained what the tenure means? If the conditions of holding are those set out in other clauses of the programme—the State to fix,the price of all land, prohibit all private sale.or transfer, and .only allow surrender to the State at its own price—what sort of tenure is that ? .■•■■■'."■' No attempt is, ever made to show how such'holding will ensure to the. working farmer the full fruits of his labour. In order that anyone may get the full, fruits of his labour from land he must do more than occupy and use the land. He must have working capital;" he must have im-. plements and machinery of production; use judgment in his purchasing and in the application"- ■ 6f^ his mental and physical, powers,.' and^even then, the conditions of markets outside'his control may' deny him the full:fruits'of his labour. ■This fulsome promise of the Labour Party is seen,' oh to be mere political cant and humbug. . "• j , Another, promise •• "being made ; . /by Messrs.-. Holland, Parry, and other Red speakers', is. that if-their- party is only supported . they will -relieve the working • farmers of their burden of mortgages... They ignore the' fact that the. mortgagor has^the benefit of the money which the mortgage represents, and could not otherwise have obtained it. This pro-, mise of general.release from mortgages is wickedly cruel unless.the party can show definitely how it is going to -be done.1 There is absolutely.nothing in the party's. platform which defines any plan for such release. The nearest, approach to any tangible proposal is: in ■ these general ; terms':—"The eliminationof exploitation' •of the working farmer by the institution of a State Bank." No bank, however;: State,or otherwise,, will lend ..money on; land ;or;"" chattels .without a .mortgager" |We observe that the/speakers f6r this: party make a good deal ,'.of : Australia having .a State bank, but they fail entirely to' show that Australian farmers, are any better off than those in New Zealand, nor do they suggest cv.en that there' are fewer, farms mortgaged iin Australia. '•') ;,' '. ...., ' : '.Whilst, we recognise that' many ..farmers^ have heavy burdens to carry, thefe is still a good" deal of nonsense attacn- ' eil to the declamation of the Red speakers who 4 recite the total number and value of mortgages in the Dominion with the suggestion that all : such advances are a burden' and a' curse upon the working farmers. , There are thousands., of persons in town and country doing well to-day who'got the money for their, first start by way of a' mortgage. The question of cheaper money andgreater advances , where needed, are practical issues to be handled on the basis of actual facts. What is most reprehensible in the Red Party's proclamations is the fact that there is nothing but promises and class diatribes. Its programme consists simply of generalities and its appeal, is only the political'clap- | trap of "trusl< us and we will give you all \you want." ■ The working farmer is talked to as if he were a country clod who knew ■ nothing, and particularly. on the land question. . ■..-'• . '