LABOUR PARTY'S LAND POLICY

Evening Post, Volume CV, Issue 147, 23 June 1928, Page 11

LABOUR PARTY'S LAND POLICY

* MR. R. M'KEEN AND WELFARE - LEAGUE The Welfare League supplies the follow: ing reply to a statement of Mr. It. M'Keen, M.P., in his political addi'essat the Parish Hall, Stratford: — • In ,the Stratford "Evening Post" of 14th June, Mr. R. M'Keen, M.P., is reported as having made tliis statement in, a political speech at Stratford-. "The Welfare League said the Labour Party desired to steal, the farmers' land'by'means of the usehold. system." ■•' That statement is simply untrue.' The league has never said anything of the kind, and Mr. M'Keeu cannot produce any evidence that the league has said .what he there affirms. He is.only performing the political trick of presenting a charge .which has never been made in order to be able .to deny it and thereby pose as the much injured party. . ■ . " The league has opposed the "usehold land tenure" policy as being unsound, but has never imputed or discussed the1 motives for bringing'it forward save to present- the fact that it is in, pm-suange of the socialist objective of the party. That brings us to the quesion, does Mr. M'Keen still uphold the "usehold land tenure" policy which his party put forward at the last election? ■ It should be easy for him to answer that question. He either does so or he does not. Is he game to answer the question? The land plank in the party's platform at'last election read: "A land tenure based on occupancy and use, which shall secure to the working farmer the full fruits of his labour and exertions." "The tenure of land, subject to occupancy and use, and to the usual provisions of the law, shall be interminable." This policy- was to apply to all lands resumed by the. State' and all on'which the State made advances in the future. .Such, was the New Zealand Labour Party's land policy affecting tenure in the platform of- 1925. Has it been altered, since then? . .The language at least has been changed. :The word "interminable" has, for instance, been changed to "perpetual." In the platform for the coming elections we find the following. l "The tenure of acquired land to be perpetual lease conditional on occupancy and use, with periodic revaluations." Now we fail to see any difference between perpetual . lease conditional on occupancy and use," and the previous wording of "a land •tenure., based on occupancy and. use which shall .'be interminable." If there is a distinction we should like Mr. M'Kecp to tel! us what it is. . The words "occupancy and use" seem to have exercised a mesmeric influence over the minds of these socialist politicians. Shall ■a. leaseholder under this tenure who is forced by circumstances to leave his holding be subject to forfeiture of his or her lease? What standard of use shall be required, of the leaseholder to. retain liis lease? Can-a lease be, named "perpetual" which is. subject to. revocation? Will the leaseholder have any rights of sale, transfer, and bequest as is provided for the freeholder? These and other ■ important questions require definite answers from the party which presents this "usehold land, tenlire" policy, and as yet there are none forthcoming. •' ' '■■■■' Seoing that Sir. JI Keen .. has been dealing with the- land question and has made reference to the Welfare League, \ve invite him to,answer tha questions herein submitted, and to elucidate the policy of his party affecting land tenure for the benefit o£ the electors.