LABOUR’S LAND POLICY.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19501, 9 June 1925, Page 6

LABOUR’S LAND POLICY.

If any additional evidence were required that the land policy of the Labour Party is not understood by members, even prominent members, of the party itself it is supplied this morning in a letter which we publish from Mr C. M. Moss, who has taken it upon himself to expound that policy in our columps. Mr Moss is so hurt by our gentle intimation that his previous letter exposed his ignorance of the subject upon which he presumed to enlighten us that he now complains that wo resorted to abuse. It is to be regretted that he is so sensitive, but we must be pardoned for suggesting that a person who poses as an authority on any question should really exhibit at least a superficial knowledge of it. Mr Moss poses as an authority on the land policy of the Labour Party, hut his letter this morning shows just as conclusively as his letter' of last week did that ho does not appreciate what the policy means or realise what the effect of the enactment of it would be. Ho professes to believe that the right of ownership of land would not be affected if the policy of the Labour Party were adopted. Surely, however, oven Mr Moss must admit that the whole principle upon which the policy of his party is based is that the ownerski u of all laud should be vested in the

State. Not only would the State become in time the owner of all land. It would also become the owner of all the means of distribution and exchange. But the Socialist attaches prime importance to the State ownership of land because, in the cant phrase, the laud of a country is the common heritage of its people. Necessarily, the State ownership of land involves the entire and complete abrogation of private ownership of land. It should not be necessary for us to explain this to Mr Moss because, after all, this is quite rudimentary and every Socialist should be expected to understand it. We wish to be perfectly fair to Mr Moss, and for that reason wo must acknowledge that he does show some glimmering of a knowledge of the policy of his party when he supposes the case of a man who “wishes to surrender his right” to land, “but only to the State.” The reservation is important. It is the crux of the whole business. As we have endeavoured to impress upon Mr Moss, the State would be the sole buyer and the sole transferee. The owner of a farm or of a section of land would not be at liberty to sell to any other individual. Nor would he be at liberty to transfer his farm or his section of land, by will or by gift, to any other individual. Therein the right of private ownership would be extinguished and the right of inheritance would be destroyed. It is all so obvious as positively not to admit of argument. Mr Moss, being swept entirely off the ground he assumed, makes a maladroit attempt to show that it is not a loaded gun that his party carries. He tries lamely to argue that the owner of laud would be in an advantageous position in selling to the State under the Labour Party’s proposals for the registration of the present owner’s interest in the land. The landowner would be in a very fortunate position to-day, he says, “owing to the inflated price of land.” Mr Moss assumes his party to be much more simple and much more innocent than it really is. An inflated value of laud is not the real value. The State would not buy at an inflated value. It would be extremely foolish if it did; and the landowner who acquired land at an inflated value need nor suppose that, if the Labour Party’s land policy came into operation, he would fce able to transfer to the State at a fictitious price. Not less curious is Mr Moss’s attempt to persuade us that the policy of his party does not mean what it says when the case has to be considered of a man who desires to bequeath his property to his relatives. Mr Moss supposes the case of a man with a farm, who wishes to leave his interests to his son. This man, Mr Moss informs us, would “instruct the State” by his will “to pass over to his son the value of his interests.” We pass over the egregious idea of the State receiving instructions from a unit of the population as to what it would do with its possessions. It will be observed, however, that Mr Moss is careful not to say that the man would bequeath his farm to his son. That is what he said last week. But he has now changed his ground, and the reason is that the Labour Party’s land policy would not allow the owuer of the farm to bequeath it to his son. On the death of the owner the State would step in and take over the farm at the registered valuation. Necessarily, in that event, the heir would receive “ the value” of the deceased owner’s “interests.” That simply goes to show that the right of inheritance would, as we have said, be abrogated under the Labour Party’s land policy. The Labour Party has, however, thought fit to declare that its proposals do not in any way interfere with the law of inheritance. In view of what we have shown, that statement involves a dishonest and clumsy attempt to create an erroneous impression respecting the real aims of the party.