LAND TENURE

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXV, Issue 23157, 1 October 1938, Page 14

LAND TENURE

Efforts to obtain a clear statement of the Labour Party's real attitude toward the question of land tenure have not yet succeeded. The subject was mentioned by the Prime Minis- | ter in his speech at Dunedin, but he left it little more definitely defined than he found it. Apart from references to giving the farmer security in possession of his farm, and to the need to safeguard him from debt. Mr. Savage's (i discussion of what is still one of the most vital questions in New Zealand rested on two points. He said the Minister of Lands had granted the freehold in 1700 odd cases in the past three years. He said also that he personally would sooner be the owner of a farm and working it in his own interests than working it in someone else's interests; and what he wanted for himself he wanted for everyone else. These things scarcely add up to a specific declaration. Moreover, they do not square with the statement the Minister of Agricujture made this week. However, the really frank member of the Cabinet has been the Minister of Lands, Mr. Langstone. "The failure of land settlement in the past," he said some months ago, "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 the plunder. While I am Minister there is going to be no new opportunity given for anyone to do that." But, according to the Dunedin speech, Mr. Langstone's own chief is one of those who want to do that, and believes others should have similar opportunities. However, the picture of Mr. Savage as a predatory land-owner need not be taken very seriously. It is just part of the general evidence showing that the Labour Party's attitude toward the vital issue of land tenure is dangerously vague.