THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS WEDNESDAY, JULY 13, 1938 LAND POLICY UNDISCLOSED

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXV, Issue 23088, 13 July 1938, Page 12

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS WEDNESDAY, JULY 13, 1938 LAND POLICY UNDISCLOSED

No subject could more closely concern the Dominion conference of the Farmers' Union than the land policy of the Government. Yet when the president, Mr. W. W. Mulholland, raised the issue yesterday, he had nothing tangible to discuss for lack of a clear definition by the Government of its policy. He was left in the unsatisfactory position of drawing inferences as to Labour's intentions, failing any specific statements to go on. Together with thousands of other farmers, Mr. Mulholland is fearful lest the real but undisclosed objective of the Government is to socialise farms and he can obtain no firm denial that would dispose of these apprehensions. If the Government cherishes no hidden designs on the land, it is not easy to understand why it should withhold the reassurance the farmers seek. Just as remarkable is the fact that, in a country whose whole economy is based on the land, a Government should hold office for almost three years without defining its position on this central question, one on which politics used to pivot. Farmers, and indeed all property owners, shoidd not be content to remain uninformed on a point vital to them all. Now that the Government is about to seek a fresh mandate from the electors, they should demand a clear and full statement. Without it they cannot reasonably be asked to return Labour to power for another three years. Thi;y have too much at stake.

In default of proper definition, farmers are justified in proceeding with Mr. Mulholland to relate Labour's land policy with Labour's general objective, which is " the socialisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange." This is still the first plank in the platform of the Labour Party, which should more correctly be named the Socialist Party. Foremost among the " means of production " stands the land and, in the absence of any denial, farmers can only conclude that Labour adheres to its objective and intends to socialise their farms. The Government has not hesitated to commandeer or socialise the produce of the farms at its own price; to take the land itself would be but one step further. Some idea of what Labour has in mind may be gathered from various statements made by the Minister of Lands. Shortly after he took office, Mr. Langstone said, " land settlement would be made to take its proper place in a new order for the benefit of all." He does not explain what he means by " a new order," but obviously it would be different from the old and existing order of private ownership. He does speak, however, of " the small farms scheme demonstrating what can be accomplished with proper organisation of labour under supervision and direction." Is it to be concluded that the demonstration is the prelude of more general organisation, supervision and direction of farms and farmers 1 Certainly Mr. Langstone speaks on another occasion of " putting into operation a planned economy " and " having, as near as possible, the right number of people producing from the soil." This sounds as if the Minister has a hankering after planned and collectivised farming on the Russian model. In fact, taking the Easter conference of the Labour Party into his confidence, Mr. Langstone announced that " State farms were now in course of establishment." He went on to mention " several localities where blocks of thousands of acres—at present in private ownership—had been selected as suitable for development." Failing an explanation of these utterances, farmers will be well advised to ponder their meaning before granting Labour another lease of office.

One thing at least seems clear—the Government does not approve of the farmer possessing the freehold and absolute property therewith. Labour when in opposition favoured a vague form of tenure called " usehold." Mr. Nash would fix the price of land by reference to productive value alone and "if a farmer who sells his land gets more for it than he ought to get," he said, " I would take every penny off him that I could." Mr. Langstone expressed the same idea when he said, " Lessees can sell their equity provided they sell tangible assets and not merely goodwill, in which I will not permit trading." He has been just as outspoken on the freehold. "The failure of land settlement in the past," the Minister said recently, " had been the granting of titles. Every man who worked on the land wanted a title to a piece of it . . . What does he want it for? Past history has shown he wants it to gamble with—to get away with plunder. While I am Minister there is going to be no | new opportunity given for anyone to do that." True to his word, Mr. Langstone continues to withhold the titles promised to those formerly unemployed who engaged in the small farms scheme in the hope of carving a secure future for themselves out of the land. Instead, they are kept on as State servants to work for wages on the first of Mr. Langstone's collectivised farms These provide the " demonstration" he mentioned of " the proper organisation of labour under supervision and direction." These examples and statements should impel farmers to demand from the Government a clear statement of its land policy. In default they should note the actual trend and ask themselves whether they should allow it to be continued, and perhaps accelerated, after the general election.