LABOUR PARTY’S POLICY

Taranaki Daily News, 26 June 1928, Page 13

LABOUR PARTY’S POLICY

R AIcKEEN AND WELFARE LEAGUI

The Welfare League supplies the following by way of reply to a statement of Air. R. AlcKeen, ALP., in his political address at the Parish Hall, Stratford:— Mr. R. McKeen, M.P., is reported as having made this statement in a political speech at Stratford. “The Welfare League said the Labour Party desired to steal the farmers’ land by means of the usehold system.” That statement is simply untrue. The League has never said anything of the kind, and Air. AleKeen 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.

The League has opposed the “usehold land tenure” policy as being unsound, but has never imputed or discussed the motives for bringing it forward save to present the fact that it is in pursuance of the socialist objective of the party. That brings us to the question, does Air. McKeen still uphold the usehold land tenure policy which his partyput forward at the last election? It should be easy for him to answer that question. He either docs so or he does not. Is he game to answer the question 1 The land plank in the party’s platform at last election read: “A land tenure based on occupancy and use, which shall secure to the working farmer the full fruits of his labour and exertions.” “The tenure of land, subject to occupancy and use and to the usual provisions of the law, shall be interminable.” This policy was to apply to al! lands resumed by the State and all on which the Stats made advances in the future. Such was the New Zealand Labour Party’s land policy affecting tenure in the platform of 1925. Has it been altered since then? The language at least has been changed. The word “interminable” has, for instance, been changed to “perpetual.” In the platform for the coming elections we find the following. “The tenure of acquired land to be perpetual lease conditional on occupancy and use, with periodic revaluations.”

Now wo fail to see any difference between perpetual lease conditional on occupancy and use and the previous wording of “a land tenure based on occupancy and use which shall be interminable.”

If there is a distinction we should like Mr. McKeen. to tell us what it is. The words “occupancy and use” seem to have exercised a mesmeric influence over the minds of these socialist politicians. ■Shall a leaseholder under this tenure, who is forced by circumstances to leave his holding be snbect to forfeiture of his or her lease? What standard of use shall be required of the leaseholder to retain his lease? Can a lease be named "perpetual” which is subect to revocation? Will the leaseholder have any rights of sale, transfer and bequest as is provided for the freeholder? These and other important questions require definite answers from the party which presents this “usehold land tenure” policy and as yet there are none forthcoming. Seeing that Mr. McKeen has been dealing with the land question and has made reference to the Welfare League, we invite him to answer the questions herein submitted and to elucidate the policy of hiJ party affecting land tenure for the benefit of the electors.