THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 15, 1925. A DANGEROUS EXPERIMENT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXII, Issue 19149, 15 October 1925, Page 10

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 15, 1925. A DANGEROUS EXPERIMENT.

OConstant discussion of the land policy offered to the electors by the Labour Party would become wearisome if the subject were not so full of importance to every citizen of the Dominion. As it is, it cannot be allowed to rest until the obscurities are made clear. The policy as a practical working proposition has not been by any means fully explained yet. The official election manifesto of the- party is now t-o hand. It should give a definite basis for judging what the policy does or does not contain. Commenting on the document yesterday the Herald said it contained no reference to a restricted application of the policy by which it would touch only estates exceeding £20,000 in unimproved value. The summarised version telegraphed did not, but the full text does. The passage dealing with it was omitted in summarisation for the telegraph. Now that the qualification can be found in the complete copy, its exact import and the degree to which it corresponds with whav, candidates are saying can be examined. The ma jew part of the manifesto dealing with land is a recital of purpose and motive, all presumably an elaboration of those clauses in the official platform which provide that after an immediate valuation ''privatelyowned land shall not be sold or transferred except to the State." Then comes a section headed ''immediate policy."' The use of the word "immediate" is significant. It means of course tjhat the full objective stands, but that its application at once is not contemplated. Realisation that the wholesale nationalisation of land —-or socialisation to use the term contained in the objective—is a fixed principle with the party ought to be enough for all those people, in town or country, who object to landlordism, even if the State be the landlord, without any consideration of the nature of the first steps. However, there is confession of a postponement. Therefore the extent of it and the interpretation given it by candidates are worth contemplation. In Auckland East, Mr. Lee, addressing a gathering of electors the night before last, said: "Our policy aims only at taking over the agricultural estates of a value of over £20,000. There are 10SO of them.' : These words are precise and specific. The Labour Party intends only to acquire 10S0 estates, each with an unimproved value of £20,000 or more. The word "only" should be specially noted. The same evening Mr. Jordan, of Manukau, said: "I did not approve of the original policy, but I do support the present policy that that portion of' estates which brings the value above £20,000 should be acquired for closer settlement." A slight discrepancy appears here, for Mr. Lee implies that the whole estate will be acquired, and Mr. Jordan that only the portion bringing the value over £20,000. It can be disregarded. What is important is that both infer plainly that the whole policy is the acquisition for closer settlement of certain large country estates. Mr. Lee goes so far as to say how many. The "immediate" policy in the manifesto makes it certain beyond possibility of doubt that this is only a tiny beginning. It says that immediately the party attains office provision will be made for the transfer of land at net cost, certain information being compiled and kept to "enable potential occupiers to come to a right, decision as to its suitability for the purpose they desire." This is fairly innocuous. Much of the information it is proposed to make available can be obtained now by searching the title. However, the manifesto proceeds:—"The Land Transfer Department would operate until the valuations provided for in the party's platform were in operation and after that date all transfers would be made to the State and all arrangements in connection with the conveyance of land from one occupier to another would be undertaken and completed by the department." Alter an estimate of the cost of transfers yearly under the present system, the document proceeds: "For the purposes of closer settlement the policy would be immediately applied to large aggregations of agricultural and pastoral land exceeding £20,000 in unimproved value." The word "immediately" is very significant, especially in relation to Mr. Lee's assurance that the policy would be applied "only" to these 1080 large estates. If Mr. Jordan reads the manifesto carefully he will find that the policy he disapproves is still retained, that what he approves is merely the first instalment of it. As Mr. Jordan denies that he is pledged to the Labour Party, no doubt he can repudiate its lurid policy it lie likes. Will he do if.'.' As for Mr. Lee, he either docs not understand what his party proposes to do, or is afraid of it. "Which is it in his case? After all, it is natural that the Labour candidates should find diiTi eultv or feel diffidence in expounding the land policy contained in their official platform. None of the explanations or elaborations yet issued has disposed of the. contention that the objective is the complete extinction of the freehold in both town and country. The term "usehold" has been dropped. It is a pity, for it was a convenient, and euphonious word, evotn if nobody succeeded during the Franklin bv-election campaign in explaining what it meant. After what happened in that electorate, it should not be necessary to dwell on the significance to the

farmer of a scheme which must eventually mean that he can never own the land he tills. The town dweller should realise in turn that when the freehold is gone—as the diehards of the Labour Party mean it should go—the pride of ownership can never be his. He can never build his own house on land that is his, clear the title, and feel secure in both possession and ownership. Thousands have done it. despite the dismal story the Labour Party tells about mortgages and the grip of banks and financial institutions. Thousands, with the help of the State Advances Department, are working steadily toward that end now. Are they prepared to endorse a system which-must bring all this to an end 1 These deductions are not strained or far-fetched. They stand out plainly on the surface of what Labour platform and manifesto propose. The position really is very simple. The. party, denouncing land speculation —which no responsible person will be very anxious to defend —proposes to settle the whole land question by formula. The trouble is, experience over many many years has proved that it will not yield to formula. In asking the electorates to endorse the formula it has drawn up, the Labour Party asks New Zealand to embark upon a highlv-dangerous experiment, risking its prosperity and well-being in a manner which no country can afford to do.