SPEECHES BY CANDIDATES

Evening Post, Volume CX, Issue 105, 30 October 1925, Page 7

SPEECHES BY CANDIDATES

WELLINGTON SUBURBS

LABOUR'S "USEHOLD" POLICY

CRITICISED BY ME. X, A. WRIGHT.

Mr. R. ,A. Wright, Reform candidate ;'or Wellington Suburbs, devoted the greater part of hia address at the Ngaio Town Hall last night to a close condemnation of the land policy of the Labour Party.

Quoting from the land policy, \yhich he said was one of the cardinal planks in the platform, he said that if it was put into effect it would turn the existing system upside-down. Sub-clause 2 of clause 2 advocated "recognition of ilio interests of the whole community in (he land by (a) a land tenure based )u occupaaicy and use, which shall se;ure to the working farmer the full fruits of his labour and exertions." At present the land tenure was based upon the freehold. There were farmers in N Tew Zealand who did not enjoy the full fruits of their labour because they ivere paying interest on a mortgage. "Can it be," asked Mr. Wright, "that this clause regarding land tenure means Jhafc • the mortgagee is in anyway to suffer—the man who has advanced money on the land ? I think it does, and in support of that I will quote Mr. Holland. In 'Hansard,' volume 203, page 202, he says: 'If the farmer gets the full fruits of his labour and exertions there is nothing left for the mortgagee.' That seems plain and unambiguous language, and I can put only one construction on it—that the payment of interest on a mortgage is not right or justifiable. Mr. Holland is also reported to have said 'interest ia something for nothing.' Such an attitude is not only wrong, not proper, and commercially immoral, but it would affect every single one of us. . . . You have to

remember that the mortgagees in New Zealand are practically the whole of the people of the country." Mr. Wright referred to the large number of people ■who had borrowed money through the State Advances Department, and remarked that surely nobody would say that because a man was not getting the full fruits of his labour he should not pay the State Advances Department the money he owed it. It would mean disaster to the credit of the Dominion if we were, to deny our obligations in such a way. The Labour Party, he continued, advocated the socialisation of the means "of production, which meant the land, and this affected dwellers both in town and country. The Labour platform prescribed a State valuation of all privately owned land, such valuation to remain on record as a measure of the present landholder's interest in the land. Privately owned land was not to be sold or transferred except to the State. The owner-was .to have the right..'to: surrender his land on a valuation. ' Mr. Wright drew attention to the fact that

■''all" privately owned land was to be valued. If an owner wished to leave his property he must sell to-the' State at the price fixed under the Government valuation and recognised by the Valuation Board, whereas under the existing system he could sell to the highest bidder. It was notorious .that Government valuations were below the market value. But if the market price "of a property had gone up, surely the owner was entitled to receive the appreciated price. The candidate claimed that any person had a clear right to sell his land in the open market. Two clauses in the Labour policy seemed to be contradictory to the •clauses he had referred to, ,he continued. One said that for the purpose of closer settlement the policy., would be immediately applied to large aggregations of agricultural and- pastoral land exceeding £20,000 in unimproved value. It should be noticed, however, that though .that might appear- contradictory, it was complementary to the clauses he had quoted. If it meant anything, it meant that it could commence at £20,000 and would later be applied to properties of lower unimproved value. Another apparently contradictory clause said that the provisions of the land policy should apply to all land on which the State had made advances.Mr. Wright concluded with the remark that it was not in accordance with the principles of fair play and free trade to prevent a man selling his property at the market price.—(Extended report by arrangement.)