LABOUR'S LAND POLICY.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19498, 5 June 1925, Page 6

LABOUR'S LAND POLICY.

TO TIIIC EDITOR. Sir. — You were evidently in a l;ad humour when writing your editorial under ihe above heading, published in your issue of Saturday. First yon say (hat Mr Montgomerie, tho 1 .about' candidate for Fran Uin, has asserted that tho l.abour Party’s .policy provides the only remedy for the abuses that are said to bo associated with the existing systems of tenure. \ou then question whether he understands the policy 111 at ho is supporting and liken him to tiio candidates in Otago at the last election, who. you allege, did not understand (ho party’s policy, and of whom one was, you .say, wholly incapable of defending tk« policy. I will leave that gentleman to answer you himself if he cares. You write that at the, recent conference the party definitely stated that the .principles of the land policy do not violate the right ot inheritance, and you assert that such a statement is impossible to justify and mat the proposals of the conference ‘ constitute a clumsy and dishonest attempt to create an erroneous impression respecting the real aims of tho party and to cloak its desire lo secure that tho right of private (property in land and in premises and the homes that are erected on land shall be completely abrogated.’ 1 . Sir, if tho above were true it would be equivalent to saying that those persons who lake an active part and speak on behalf of the party are dishonest and disreputable citizens of the worst _ type, in so far (hat, they take advantage of the lack of political knowledge of the people who support them and have faith in them. It is because of this fact that I, os one who had the pleasure of standing on behalf of the party at tho last election, have decided to place in front of the people what Tbelieve to be the true position and to explain the object underlying the land plank, etc. Obviously the main points which yon try to impress arc. first, that the party is out to abolish what is called private property rights. That is quite contrary to fact anc to its platform. What the party aims at is taking away the evils that arise out- ot private ownership‘of land, etc. _ Secondly, yon state that the party is dishonest in not telling the people outright that the Labour Party’s principle violates the laws of inheritance, etc. To answer these points it will bo necessary first to take the objective of the party—viz-: “The socialisation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange. Probably the most contentious matter here is what is meant by “socialisation. jo some people, apparently including you, Sir, it would moan’ the absolute ownership by the State, which through its representatives weald say how. and in what way, the individuals should use, or direct to he used, the said wcallh, whether it be land, machinery, or goods which they had create d. The second view would Ire one in which wealth created by the individuals could l*r used by those individuals, distributed and used, in such a manner and way, so long as the individuals did not violate the freedom and rights of the rest of rociotv ns they deemed advisable. The first moaning would imply that the individual would become a member of a servile State, losing his individual freedom ns a citizen, which would necessitate a military dictatorship to uphold the same. The second meaning would be tbit be retains his individual right as a citizen and is allowed to direct and use wealth which he has produced in such a manner and way as he desires. This view is the onlv logical view that, can be taken when tho party’s objective is read in conjunction with its platform, which reads, upder Land: —• 2. The recognition of the interests o! tie whole community in the Jnuil by:— (a) A land tenure based on occupancy and use and which shall -eeurc to ihe ■.vo-kun: Janner tho full fruits of hi- labour and exertions. (h) The securing to thr community of all values created hv the community. (d) The tenant's absolute right to iinprovomx "(a) A State valuation of all privatelyowned land, such valuation to remain on record a-, a measure ~i [r.-c.r- iit landholder's interest in land. (b) That privately-owned land shall not be sold or transferred except to the Slate. (e) Tho owner shall have the right to surrender his land on the valuation set out in sub-section (a). We see from the above clauses that tho par tv, from a moral side, tocogniscs tht right of all to the laud; secondly, from an economic side, tho right to tho person who works tho land to a tenure which will “secure” to him the lull fruit of his toil and security of occupancy so long as he uses tho land, together with “absolute” right to improvements —surely au acknowledgment bv the party through its platform of tho right of private property and ownership. Your point, that tho party violates the principle of the law of inheritance, or Uuright of persons to bequeath their belongings to their relatives and friends is really ridiculous. What, the party does stand for is quite clear from the clauses quoted above. To make it perhaps more clear I will cite a case. A possesses farm land, hia interest in if being £IOOO, and building, etc., £IOOO. His interest in the land is guaranteed in clause 5 (a). Buildings, improvements, etc,, are guaranteed under clause 2 (d). He dies leaving a will, bequeathing all to In’s son. His son decides not to work (he farm. Ho is compelled to pass it. over to tho Slide at the above valuations. ’lTie son would receive £2OOO, being the parents’ share in the property. On the other hand, if he cares to work the property, what is more natural than that he would bo allowed to work ir. through the State giving him first choice? Surely it is necessary to use a little com mon sense when discussing a matter of so great importance. In conclusion may T offer a Tittle advice? If you are afraid of the Labour Partv and its policy, do not write about it, for if you do you are bound to write u lot of nonsense.' What tho party does stand for is a state of society organised on such a basis that those people who own land, machinery, or money shall use their wealth for tho further creation of wealth, —exactly opposite to what is taking place in this fair land of New Zealand, which is steadily going back through land going out of production, machinery standing idle, and trade depression looming on the horizon with its necessary evils of poverty on tho one hand, and luxury for a few on tho other. —I am, etc., C. M. MOSS. North-Haat Valley, June 1.