LABOUR PARTY’S LAND POLICY

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXI, 11 August 1928, Page 5

LABOUR PARTY’S LAND POLICY

HOW IT WAS‘CHANGED (Contributed By tho S.Z. Welfare j, ' League). In lhe discussion which look place in Parliament on the Haunter Crown leases Hill (jut general question, of land policy arose. The Prime. jVJ.ini.ster put •the question ‘iWliiit is the land policy of tint Labour Party?” To that Air E. J. Howard made answer “it is still the same. It's been the same for 30 years.” That, cannot he described as other than pure bluff. In order to show that the policy is not the same as it was three years ago we shall set Out what appears in the official platforms of 1925 and the present- one. LAND PLANKS 1925 The platform here quoted from is dated April 1925 and is signed by T. Hrindlo, President, and W. Nash, Secretary, "for the New Zealand Labour Party. Tho following arc the' statements of its land policy relating to tenure. (1) A land tenure based on occupancy and'use.' (2) A State valuation of all privately owned lapd, such valuation to remain on record as Hie measure of the present landholders’ interest in land. (3) That privately owned land shall not be sold Or transferred except to the State. (4) The owner shall have the right to surrender Jiis land .on the valuation set qu'l in '(,2) above, ' r • (5) The ten.dre, of land, subject 1.6 openpii/icy and use arid to the usual pro l visions of the law, shall be interminr able.

It is very plain that, the then policy of the party as set out in these planks was directed towards making the State the solo land owner as, if no land could be sold or transferred except to the State then it would in time become the only possessor of land. The holding of land was to be interminable subject to occupancy and use. That was the sole tenure for all land and it gave the holder no right other than to occupy and use. This is neither a freehold nor leasehold system but what is rightly described as a “usehold tenure” system. ' .

As is well known this policy was strongly opposed throughout tho'Dominiori and at least one of the party’s candidates, Mr W. J. Jordan, MP., repudiated it. CHANGING THE POLICY At the Conference of the Party held 18th to 20th April, 1927, at Napier this question of land tenure was referred to a committee to report on. The committee brought down its report, Which was later adopted, and it read as follows. "We recommend that the present section of the platform'dealing with land be. deleted, and the following inserted: ‘Public ownership of land being the only ultimate remedy for the present chaos and muddle, the party’s platform provides.’ ” /

(1) Full recognition of ownei’s’ interest in all land, including tenure, the right of sale, transfer and bequest. (2) The tenure of acquired land to be perpetual lease conditional on occupancy and use, with periodic revaluations. From the foregoing ,it is very clear that the parly has deleted the policy of forced land nationalisation with y which it faced the electors in 1925, True it still declares that public ownership cs the only ultimate remedy, but though the Conference affirmed that, by adopting the Report, the party managers did not insert it in the official platform signed by R. Semple, President, and W. Nash, secretary. . The. change effected in the platform is that, whilst that, of 1925 gave no recognition of the freehold arid sjid no t even mention lease, the present one, adopted April 1927 and not since altered, declares for:—*?' f A. Recognition' of the freehold svstcpi, which "is _also tho policy of the Reform and National parties. ’ B. Perpetual lease for land acquired by the .Clown, a .reversion to the policy of the old Liberal Party. The deletion of file clause “that, privately owned land shall not he sold or transferred except, to the State” and the insertion of'the clause—“full recognition of owners’ interest in all land, including tenure, right of sale, transfer and bequest” is a. radical change. Tn face of these facts for Mr Howard to say the policy “is still the same” is utterly ridiculous. ATTEMPT AT CAMOUFLAGE Still the party leaders will not acknowledge that the platform was ever changed as that would be admitting they were in the wrong which, of course, could never be. In order to cover the position they are clinging to the words “occupancy arid use,” which appear in both platforms, and protest that there is no change. 'lt is a trick of Camouflage which is easily exposed. In 1925 “occupancy and use” was to bo the basis of ail holding whereas in 1927 it is made applicable only, to lease of land acquired by ilie Crown, a clear distinction

To further explain away what was aimed at by their “policy’ 5 they are now busily engaged in arguing that it is the provision in many leaseholds that the tenants are required to occupy the holding and make certain improvement:’ This is merely a shallow subterfuge. To argue that jiecause the Crown owns some land that this affirms the policy of land nationalisation is utter nonsense.

Similarly to contend that the provision in some leases for residence and improvements is the same as a policy niajking “occupancy and' use” the sole basis of all land holdings, is sheer humbug. This party is really in a bad way over its land policy. It framed one which got it into trouble. .'lt changed it by adoption, from the Reform and Liberal parties. Now it denies that it has altered it and adds explanations that the platform does not mean what it says, and never did. It is a sad plight l to get into.