Untitled

Hokitika Guardian, 27 May 1929, Page 4

iMi-ati-: is U) doubt a out the energy ..nil enthusiasm of Sir Jo-epli AVard mi ftihijling bis position as I‘rime Minister and also leader of bis party. Sir Joseph is busy .ravelling and exp.•■ Hiding his policy as he goes. He as recei.ing -a remarkable re..eption oi. all sides, being received liv large and representative ga; her.ngs oi" the pimple, and his platform is also being •veil received. It will be r.called that Mr Seddon, when leading the country politically over twenty years ago, made .t his practice of frequently addressing be tropic* and explaining the trend of tbe Liberal policy, and Sir Joseph

• 'UId not follow a better lead. A vital plank in the United policy is to be •ne that was a bv> a main plank with tbe Liberals—land settlement. Sir Joseph has been expounding tlrs and so lias the Minister of Lands (Mr Forbes) md their colleagues often re-echo -it. The herd of the Cabinet is ma ing it •ilain that the com try must have land "or settle" ont and if need be will place the Land for Se'tlement Act in force and acquire land as required where siTlitniVV. As the Auckland “Star” bns noted, as scon as the Government • nnourced its intention of rutting the "ends for Set’loment A f, t into operation again, and enforcing the compulsory clauses, an on-cry is raised bv the great landowners against this policy as' unsound and impracticable. ’’ hose protests are being repeated throughout the Dominion wherever-the n rime Minister or his colleagues publicly discuss the problems of land -e-'tlenient. The intention evidently *,s to create a body of publiv opini n strongly opposed to the compulsory urchase of privately owned and imir ved laud. .But the grounds cn which most opponents of tbe system of compulsory purchase -condemn it seem to us curiously illogical and un-c’-nvincing. The argument is that as soon as the Government shows any intention of applying the compulsory "I a uses of the Act the owners put the land up lo a price at which it would ! -e impossible for small farmers and settlers to maki a decent living out of ft. The inference we are asked to draw is that the whole project is a de'us:on and a snare. The Auckland “Herald” (an opposition paper) puts the case for the benefit of its renders: “The obvious moral is that settlement ’’V purchase and sub-division, if not an illusory scheme, is certainly a dangerous one.” In plain language, this "mans that if the landowners put a high price upon their land, the Government must take it at that price and no other, and that the Government is powerless to effect any reduction in that price with the object of giving its tenants a chance of making an economic success of their holdings. It is, of course, obvious that a difficulty of this sort can be met in a variety of ways. Sir Joseph AVard has 1 1 ready suggested that estates should be acquired “on a fair productive value” agreed upon by arbitration in which the owner would he represented. Apart from this, it is possible lo revive the traditional Liberal policy oi" compulsory purchase on the basis of the owner’s valuation as declared by him for Hie assessment of taxes. The “Herald” evidently scents danger in he air and talks vaguely about the dangers of “confiscatory purchases.” But many ways can be' devised to secure improved land by compulsory purchase at a fair price. The problem, after all, is perfectly simple. Where large areas of land fit for closer settlement are held in private hands, the Lands for Settlement Aet can and will lie enforced with such modifications as may lie necessary to prevent settlers from being in any way exploited, and the exponents of Liberalism to-day should he no more impressed by protests about “confiscation” than were their forerunners in the days of Ballanee and Seddon, forty years ago.