"IT IS NOT CHANGED"

Evening Post, Volume CX, Issue 105, 30 October 1925, Page 9

"IT IS NOT CHANGED"

LABOUR'S LAND POLICY

ME. CHAPMAN REPLIES,

-"Notwithstanding the criticism that has been levelled at the Labour Party's land policy," said Mr. C. 11. Chapman, the Labour candidate for Wellington Suburbs, at Island Bay last evening, "and notwithstanding the statements that have been made, 1 can assure you this evening that the policy of the party has not been changed, und that the candidates who are standing in Labour's interests have not the slightest intention of changing their policy simply because it is criticised."

In reply to questions asked by the Welfare League, Mr. Chapman said that apparently the writer did not realise that tho law to-day was that valuations of. all land were to be made. Hates wero levied upon valuations; how was that valuation arrived at unless it was made as valuations must be? On page 6 of the pamphlet issued by the Labour Party in explanation of its land policy appeared the following paragraph :— "Any owner who is not satisfied with the State valuation as provided above may fix his own valuation, the State to have the right to acquire the property at any time thereafter at the valuation so fixed, plus the value of improvements. The owner may at any time reduce the valuation."

Valuations in the drdinary course would be determined by an Assessment Court, comprising one member appointed by the Government, one member appointed by the local bodies within thp land district, and one member selected by tho laiid occupiers of tho land district. Provision was mnde also for an Appeal Board, consisting of a Sup reme Court Judge, oue person appoint ed by the Government, and one person representing the land occupiers. At the present time, continued Mr. Chapman, a property owner might be compelled to sell. Apparently the opponents of Labour did not realise that the Wellington City Council could go along and put a proclamation upon a property, under the Public Works Act, if it was considered advisable to buy in tho public interest, and the owner could then sell to no one else than the City Council.

The Labour Party's land policy had been put forward to deal with the most important problem before New_ Zealand at the present time. The housing problem was serious, but the land problem was at the bottom of all problems. Tho Labour Party's policy would encourage men to go op the land, and would ensure them finance for the working of the land and the fullest productivity of the land. The result of the present system was thai boom . times were followed by slump times, by bankruptcies, and by farmers' walking off their lands. Everyone knew that that was what had happened in New Zealand, but when the Labour Party came along and put forward proposals that would, if carried into effect, end the present unsatisfactory system and its effects, the policy was misrepresented by those to whose interest it was to misrepresent, and it was said that Labour would confiscate land and property. No greater slander had ever been uttered. The suggestion that a Labour Government would take from one. to give to another was simply a vague imagining of a low mentality. In answer to a question, Mr. Chapman said that the first application of its land policy winch a Labour Government would reake would be in respect of estates of over £20,000 in value, and probably the average person would not bo himself affected at all, except by his sharo of the benefits which follow upon tho application of a policy which would make for increased productivity. Tho Labour.Government would extend tho Lund Transfer Department's operations to enable transfers to bo made without payment of excessive fees, and it was probably safe to say that ninetynine' land asenls out of every hundred would certainly voln against Labour's land policy. (Laughter.)