FINAL SPEECH

Southland Times, Issue 20523, 27 June 1928, Page 7

FINAL SPEECH

PRESESSIONAL TOUR MR H. E. HOLLAND AT HASTINGS LAND QUESTION DEALT WITH (Per United Press Association.) Hastings, June 26. Mr. H. E. Holland, Leader of the Opposition, concluded his pre-sessional tour at Hastings to-night when he addressed a large audience in the Assembly Hall. He devoted practically the whole of his speech to the land question, criticizing the Reform Party’s policy. The speaker took his hearers back to 1912 when the Reformers challenged waning Liberals, denouncing them, at the same time making all kinds of promises. The Liberals during the 15 years increased the National Debt £20,000,900. Reformers during a similar period exclusive of war loans, increased the debt £80,000,000. He understood from the president of the Farmers’ Union that some figures were omitted from the Year Book and he could not ascertain the position properly. Reformers proclaimed themselves as friends of the farmers and made many promises. Mr. Holland stated there were 43,500,000 acres of rural land in New Zealand in 86,000 holdings. Of the holders of rural lands, nearly 7,000 held 30,000,000 acres leaving 13,000,000 among 78,000. Referring to the larger holdings, Mr Holland stated that the Government diminished one only during last year. He admitted they must consider value besides area to judge whether the holdings were large or small. Dealing with the evils of mortgages, the speaker said that Mr Coates told the farmers he would give them freehold. How many owned freehold? If merchants and banks held the title deeds it was not really freehold, only mortgage. Some workers were accused of going slow. Mortgages were never accused of going slow, working day and night and getting the farmers in the end. (Laughter). Mr. Holland quoted figures showing that during the Reform regime registered mortgages increased 242 per cent, while the capital value increased only 92 per cent. Instead of giving freehold, the Reform gave a Dominion wide mortgage hold which was a strangle hold on the country. The Reformers claimed to be the champions of freehold. Why didn’t they let farmers own their own land? Interest on registered mortgages was something for farmers to consider. The total annual interest bill at 6 1-3 per cent, was over £19,000,000. Fifty-five per cent, of it was on rural lands. They should realize that farmers shared the great burden of £lO,000,000. The large percentage of mortgages under £lOOO showed that farmers were carrying a heavy interest bill. If the Government brought forward legislation to reduce mortgages interest, they would have conferred a greater benefit than a tax reduction. While overseas banks reduced the bank interest, our associated banks lifted the rate A to 7 per cent. They never raised a hand to combat the action of Financial institutions although Reform promised farmers finance. The Year Book showed that since the Government was in power, the amount borrowed at, the low rate reduced while amounts borrowed at high rate substantially increased.

Mr. Holland dealt with the evils of land transfer. During 16 years there had been 484,009 transactions, about three for every holder. During the period under consideration money of transfers totalled £513,000,000. Costs involved five per cent, making the total cost nearly £26,000,000 in transferring from one set of holders to another. He did not contend that all was not unnecessary but a large proportion were due to mortgages. The results of the Reform land policy increased, land agents’ business. The great costs involved must in the end be paid by the producers and consumers. The land’s only real value was its productive value. When raised above that it was loading against the producer and consumer alike. The Labour Party proposed that land transfer do the work that land agents were now doing.

Mr Holland challenged any small farmer to prove that he received benefit from the reduced land taxation. He quoted figures to show that the only benefit received were the owners who h'ad large taxable balances. He stated that a mere handful received £250,000.

He criticized the financial legislation to assist the farmer as ineffective and not availed of by the farmers with the cxcep tion of a few. He spoke of the State and agricultural banks on the lines of his previous speeches. He saw numbers of men trudging the roads, willing to work, but unemployed. There was no excuse for th:e in such a richly-endowed country as New Zealand. Farmers’ interests lay with the wage-earners, as without their efforts their produce was valueless. If the workers got better wages they would be larger consumers of the farmers’ produce. Speaking regarding exports, he said the middle-man handling New Zealand produce in Britain must be eliminated. At the conclusion Mr Holland was accorded a vote of thanks. ADDRESS TO MAORIS. A large representative gathering of Maoris met Mr Holland at Omahu this afternoon at the first meeting in the district called to meet the Leader of the Opposition. A welcome was extended by two chiefs. After outlining the outcome of the Labour Conference, 1925, and the Maori representations and declaring that he thought the Government was not paying enough attention to the compilation of Maori records, Mr Holland devoted his address to Samoan questions. He briefly outlined the changes of administration prior to Samoa being handed over to New Zealand and then criticized General Richardson’s administration.

Mr Holland stated that the people were angry because the Government allowed in-fluenza-stricken ships in 1918 to leave New Zealand shores to visit Western Samoa where, he said, 25 per cent, of the native population died. This was followed by General Richardson’s administration, banishing chiefs, taking away tribal customs and generally breaking promises until the natives were incensed. He compared the justice meted out to the Samoans and to the Maoris and gave instances of where he contended that a miscarriage of justice had taken place in Samoa. “The Coatee Government administrators have violated all the principles of the Magna Charta held so dearly by the British people,” he said, and added that it was unfortunate that with the exception of one speech by the Hon. Sir Maui Pomare, no Maori in Parliament had stood with the Labour Party in support of the Samoans. If Labour was in power it would meet the Samoans on the basis of conciliation and justice and let them know that they were given the right to take part in the government of their own country. Every promise made by any previous Government would be honoured to the full and the European and Samoan would be given the same fair trial as the Maori and pakeha were given in New Zealand. Procedure along these lines would make the mandate administration a credit to New Zealand and satisfactory to the Samoans. If the administration could not be carried out without violence, then it was better to hand Samoa back to the League of Nations. Votes of thanks were passed to Mr Holland.