LABOUR'S LAND POLICY

Stratford Evening Post, Issue 75, 25 June 1928, Page 5

LABOUR'S LAND POLICY

MR MCXEEN'S ADDRESS

WELFARE LEAGUE ASKS QUESTIONS. The Welfare League supplies the following by way of reply to a statement of Mr R. McKeeu, M.P., in his political address at the Parish Hail, Stratford.

In the Stratford “Evening Post” of June 14th, Mr R. McKeeu, M.P. is reported as having made this statement in a poll tiq.il speech at Stratford. “The Welfare League said the Labour Party desired to steal the farmers land by means of the msehold system.” That statement is simply untrue. The League has never said anything of the kind, and Mr McKeen cannot produce any evidence that the League has said what he there affirms. He is only performing the political trick of presenting a charge which has never been made in order to be able to deny it and thereby pose as the much injured party. OPPOSED USEHOLD.

The League hUs opposed the “usehold laud tenure” policy as being unsound, but has never imputed, or discussed, the motives for bringing it' forward save toi present the fact that it is in pursuance of the socialist objective of the party, That brings us to the question, does M/r McKeen still uphold the usehold land tenure policy which his party put forward at the last election? It should he easy lev him to answer that question. He either does so or he does not. I s he game toi ('answer the question. The Land plank in the party’s, platform election read; “A land tenure ’uased on occupancy and use, which shall secure to the working farmer the fully fruits of his labour and exertions.” “The, tenure of land, subject to occupancy and use and to the usual provisions of the law, shall he inter mumble.” This policy was to apply to all lands resumed by the State and all on which the State made advances in the future. Such was the N.Z. LVibtour Party’s land policy affecting tenure in the platform of 1925. . o Has it been altered since thei . The language at least has been ranged. The wotd “interminable jias, for instance, been changed to perpetual.” In the platform for xne coming elections we fin. , le °. | “The tenure of acquired and to be perpetual lease conditional on occupancy and use, with periodic icVa WJIERE’S THE DIFFERENCE? lw we lil to see any differ = between perpetual lease on occupancy and use, and 1 vious wording of a lan - based on occupancy and use shall be interminable. ’ ~ If there is a distinction we smu like Mr McKeen to tell us what n is. be subject to foifeinxvc of b.s or bo. -- ** quired ot the beholder to , “ s „Mect t . revocation ?V. dl the leaseholder have any nß,l * s “ transfer and Leanest a s .. mf°r onesThese and otner l tlie tionsrennire definite answers frt™^ a, sX C ttfr’SKecn to. answer tbe Stf electors-“contributed by tbe N.Z. Welfare League).