THE OPPOSITION, THE LABOUR PARTY AND THE LAND.

Wanganui Chronicle, Issue 12840, 11 December 1911, Page 3

THE OPPOSITION, THE LABOUR PARTY AND THE LAND.

To the Editor.

Sir, —Discussing the possibilities of tho second ballot before the election, tho Government Party used to say (in its most serious manner) to the Labour Party, " Surely 1 Heaven forbid it! Surely you will never support the Opposition !" But now that the first round is ovor, tho Government Party has discovered another object of its concern, and its members are busily saying to tho local Opposition, "Surely you will not join in with tho revolutionary Labour Party? Surely you have more in common with us?" It shows how desperate the Ward Party's position is when, having condemned the Opposition root and branch, it suddenly begins to bid for tho Opposition's vote. The truth of tho whole matter is that it is willing to get anybody's vote to keep in office, and only sneers when it finds those votes likely to go to someone else. Tho Liberal Party has become as reactionary as tho Conservative Party ovor was", and despite the Government's stalo old arguments about tho Opposition's sins of 20 years ago, the fact remains that tho lapse of time has made tho Conservative Party much inoro Liberal, and that its ideas are now in some respects far more democratic than the Government's. In many respects, indeed, though by no means in all, its ideals approach those of the Labour Party, which shows tho absurdity of the Government trying to capture the Conservative voto by claiming that they have ground in common. With your permission, \J will refer to what is the most vital part of any party's platform—the land question. On this point, tho Government has nothing definite, no Bottled principles. The Opposition and Labour Party have each a settled land programme, and though they differ in some important respects, a study of each of them wfll show how far in advanco of tho Government both these parties havo got in this matter. The Labour Party's attitude on the land question has been persistently misrepresented. Tho chief point of difference between it and the Opposition lies in tho Crown lands. The Opposition goes for universal freehold. The Labour Party has no particular objection to tho freehold per se, but rather to the abuse of tho freehold. It has not the slightest intention of disturbing any man's freehold tenure, does not intend, and novor did, nor will intend, to confiscate any Crown land already sold, and does not intend to go back on the bargain made by tho Stato with those who have taken up land on tho optional tenure. Its desire to retain land for the State only applies to such Crown land as is not yob sold, and it believes this should bo kept as an endowment for the people. No one, for instance, would advocato tho selling of tho Collegiate School or Hospital endowments, and no one grumbles at thoso endowments being leased instead of sold. On exactly tho same- principle the Labour Party wants to keep the few Crown lands left to ua as an endowment for tho people, becauso it is good business to do it, just as it is good business for the Collegiate School and tho Hospital to have their endowments. But so far as the remaining lands are concerned, that us by far the greater majority of tho land in the Dominion, the Labour Party does not trouble whether it is held on leasehold or freehold. It will let every man go for the system of tenure that his own particular circumstances or command ni capital make most suitable for him. All it insists on is this, and it insists on it all the time, that every landholder must uso his land. The Labour Party's In ml policy is first and foremost, a policy of " use"; it has no time for idle land. Now, Sir. can anyone cavil at that attitude or bo justified in calling it revolutionary? One definite nlank in iha Labour Pnrty's land platform, a plank to which it is pledged, is that all improvements, whether made nn frpp'io'd or lonsehold land, shall be the property of the owner, and shall be absoutely exempt from taxation. Can anyone call that an injustice to any-

body? Tho Labour Party says that where the State has increased the value of land by expenditure of the public's j money on roads and. railways, some or that value created by the public should go back to tho public in the form of an annual tax. Thus, the Labour Party's policy secures to the owner the improvements or values he creates, and secures to the public the values it creates. Is not that perfectly fair? Does not that appear a reasonable thing to every man who is.not a land gambier?' The Opposition declares itself in favour of limitation of area,- and the Labour Party declares itself against land monopoly. Both look tho same thing] nevertheless, there is some difference. The Opposition's limitation -s.plank is quite sound* but the Labour Party's anti-monopoly plank will, upon examination, be found to be sounder still, for the simple reason that there are certain cases in which the Labour Party would not impose limits of area for many years to come. As before said, the Labour Party's land platform is one of "use." There are certain lands, for instance, around Lake Taupo which it would bo impossible to utilise in 200----acro or even 1000-acro areas, because tho land is too poor. Even if it were j rich land, it would still bo impossible to utiliso it in small areas, because it is 100 miles from a railway, and the roads are little better than wheel tracks, and 200-acro farms could not possibly stand the expense of getting produce out to the market. Under the present Administration, these lands lie idle, be- J cause they cannot be got on satisfac- i tory tenures. The Labour Party's attitude to these and other similar lands elsewhere in the Dominion is that it is better to have them productive even j ■in large blocks than to lie idle. If i:one but a moneyed man would take them up, it would allow him to do so as long as he undertook to utilise tho land, because not only he, but others also would benefit by its iitilisation. If a poor man wanted to take them up. tho Labour Party, if in power, would assist hinv^nancially on easy terms or repayment; so long as he, too,. undertook to iiso the land. Whoever took them up would have his improvements absolutely secured to him, and they would be exempt from taxation. Large areas in such a case would not amount •to monopoly, for there can be no monopoly where there is no population. But" what about later on, when settlement has extended, and a population comes along ? Would these large areas amount to monopoly then ? Yes, they would; because then there would be other men needing a show. So the Labour Party would make one other condition —that when population came along the landholder must be prepared to subdivide, and while seeing that he committed no extortion on those who followed, tho Labour Party would allow him to reap all the reward which, his pioneer^ work, his courage, .and his enterprise entitled him to. Will any .fair and reasonable man find anything unjust or unsound or unbusinesslike in that? All these planks are definitely secured by the Labour Party's land platform. Yet wo find supporters of'the Government (the party without any land policy at all) going round and spreading the slander that the Labour Party's policy is one of Socialism, revolution and confiscation. Any member of the local Labour Party will be prepared to supply a copy of its policy to anyone who wants to study it, and I am satisfied though they "•will 'find some of its planks advanced, v they r will find nothing in them that spells'revolution. I have endeavoured to outline some of the main features of its land policy, and I think those who have been suspicious of it because of not knowing it will now agree that there is nothing in it to cause alarm to anyone, unless he is a land gambler. It is a policy of "use." It is not a policy of revenge, and the Labour Party does not even intend to, exact reparation for past abuses. All it warits'os to prevent abuses in future. I think the above is sufficient to show that the Labour Party is not a party for one class only, but that it stands for the interests of everybody who wants to see justice and progress.—l am, etc., LABOUR ELECTOR.