LABOUR’S LAND POLICY.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLV, Issue 176, 29 June 1925, Page 4

LABOUR’S LAND POLICY.

The member lor Manukau, who is one of tho seventeen Labour oppositionists in the House of Representatives, lias fallen from grace. Following tho Franklin by-election and the defeat of Mr Montgomerie, the Labour candidate, he was indiscreet enough to say tliut the Labour Party would abandon its land policy. It had been tric'd and found wanting, and Labour would not be ioolish enough to persist in u policy which was seen to be so objectionable to the men on the land. Such, in effect, was his statement. Rut, when the member for Auckland West was asked for his opinion on Mr Jordan's statment, and n it was true that tile policy would be dropped, Mr Savage replied with emphasis, “.Not on your lire.” And, later on, tlio Leader ot the Parliamentary Labour Party made it equally clear that, so tar as he was entitled to speak for the party, lie could say definitely that the policy stood, and would continue to stand, in Mr Holland’s opinion it is the best and only sound policy for the farmer, 'lne Franklin farmers think otherwise. So does every sensible man who has' grasped the true inwardness of the policy of spoliation and confiscation wliicu the Labour Party advocates. It has been reserved, however, for the Wellington journal which professes to speak for the New Zealand Labour Party, and tile Alliance of Labour, to administer to Mr Jordan the “wigging” that gentleman intimated he expected to receive, when he heard of Mr Savage’s reply to his statements. The journal in question expresses the opinion that “Mr Jordan's pronouncement against the Labour Party’s land policy” is “highly eondeninable,” and that “the method by which it was communicated to tho public” (that is through the press) is “wholly foreign to what is calculated to serve the best interests of the movement. When (the paper proceeds) Mr Jordan has been a member of the party a little longer, he will, doubtless, tie conscious of the fact that its policy is determined by its conferences, and cannot be changed or withdrawn, except by proceedings provided"Vy its' constitution. It will never consent to be made the convenience of a single member of Parliament.” More sensible than his colleagues, the member tor Manukau recognises that, so lur as the rural constituenceis are concerned, the Labour Party cannot hope to gain the ascendancy while it holds to a policy which is considered by the greater number of farmers to be so destructive of their interests. Rut, according to the reasoning of his colleagues and the Labour journal, lie bad no right to express any opinion on the land tenure question* other than that “determined by the Labour Party’s conferences,” which, by the way, is rattier unfortunate for those members of the Labour Party who put their own interpretations on Labour’s policy as thus agreed upon. So far as its land policy is concerned we do not see how it can be consistently modified, so long as the socialisation objective is maintained. Ever since the days of the old Federation of Labour and Social Democratic Party “the socialisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange” lias figured, in one form or another, as the party objective. Jn keeping with that objective, the laud policy adopted in 1019 provides for the nationalisation of all lands in the Dominion, Die system proposed to be adopted being the purchase of all freeholds by the State, payment to be made by way of Government bonds, redeemable on* a 5 per cent, basis within 20 years. Ry virtue of that policy all lands, for whatever purpose they might be utilised, would become the property of the State. Nominally, the holders of land would be entitled to tho value of their improvements; but as they could only sell to the State, and would have to accept the State valuation of their interest in such improvements,they would be very much at the mercy of officials, and a possibly unsympathetic Government, which would bo under no obligation to find purchasers for the improvements, nominally owned by those who wished to sell out. Then, again, tho bonds with which the freeholds would be purchased would almost inevitably depreciate in value and become unsaleable, for experience elsewhere lias shown that Labour Governments are lacking in both conscience and equity, when dealing with the rights of property owners', and even in the case of leaseholders, who have undertaken large expenditures in developing estates, which have been leased to them for a long term of years. We do not wonder that Mr Jordan lias entered his protest against the policy. Rut we do wonder what he is going to do about it!