The Wanganui Chronicle WEDNESDAY, MAY 18, 1927. LABOUR PARTY’S LAND POLICY

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 19843, 18 May 1927, Page 6

The Wanganui Chronicle WEDNESDAY, MAY 18, 1927. LABOUR PARTY’S LAND POLICY

Practically everyone who has reviewed the land policy which is now being put forward by the New Zealand Labour Party has hit first and foremost on the fact that there is hardly anything whatever that is new in it. Not only is a great deal already provided for in the existing laws, but some parts of it are old fads which have been tried in years gone by and discarded as impracticable.

The latest reference to this land policy, so-called, of the Labour Party is, of course, that contained in the Prime Minister’s speech at Dargaville on Monday night, when Mr Coates exposed its patched-up nature so mercilessly that one could scarce help feeling sorry for its authors. Where there was anything definite about it, he showed that that was already in operation and had been so for years. In other cases, he pointed out that fine-sounding, academic phrases contained in it were not accompanied by the least information as to ways and means of putting their theoretical excellence into effect. Mr Coates was very effective in his remarks on the Labour Party’s attitude towards land ownership, though for that matter he said practically the same as has been said repeatedly by others during the past few weeks. He pointed out that, in the place of the “usehold” —now abandoned as altogether too absurd—the party had put up a strange mixture of freehold and socialisation in that, while it approved the principle of private ownership by safeguarding an owner’s tenure, it nevertheless affirmed that public ownership was the end to be aimed at. How any party could, as the Premier observed, thus blow hot and blow cold in two breaths and then expect to get away with it, must be left to the imagination. The most glaring—in one -way it is amusing—instance of digging up the hoary past for material that was mentioned by the Premier was in relation to what the Labour Party calls “State provision of all facilities for the transfer of land.” Mr Coates must surely have chuckled when he reminded his audience that there was such a thing as the Land Transfer Act and that it had been in operation for 57 years. The spectacle of a political party trotting out for an astonished world’s admiration something that, apparently unknown to itself, is already over half a century old must surely be one seldom seen. And it must make every good member of the party’s rank and file writhe whenever he thinks of it. LAND OCCUPATION AND BIG AREAS In his recent speech-making tour of the country Mr H. E. Holland, the leader of the Labour Party, it-will have been noticed, made no reference to the taste for the antique displayed by those who framed his party’s land policy. Instead, he very vigorously attacked the Government’s land administration, using a very ingeniously compiled set of figures which, as already pointed out in these columns, did not represent anything like the true position. Mr Holland, it may be recalled, presented only the figures for last year, ignoring all reference to past years. Had he also quoted the figures at the time the present Government took office, and shown his audience the difference between 1910 and 1926, they would have seen not only a notable change but a position that showed a steady improvement from year to year in regard to land occupation in New Zealand. That is a stubborn fact that cannot be explained away, but Mr Holland gave only half the fact. The Prime Minister gave an answer at Dargaville to Mr Holland and smote him hip and thigh. Not only did he reply on the same line as above, but he gave numerous figures and a searching analysis of them that left Mr Holland not a leg to stand on. Furthermore, he showed that, so far as big areas were concerned, the Leader of the Opposition was as hopelessly astray in his knowledge of the country as he was in confusing “ownership” with “occupation,” two entirely different things. When one considers that practically all the big areas in the Dominion are rated at even less than third-class; that they are either mountain top, or tussock country, or pumice areas, or gum land; that, as pointed out by Mr Coates, their carrying capacity ranges from a sheep to two acres down to as low as one sheep to seven acres, the absurdity of arguing that such lands as these should be utilised for close settlement should be patent to the most limited intelligence. A leader of a political party should always be at least reasonably acquainted with the facts. In the first place, it is only a fair thing that he shoiild. In the second, neither he nor his party can afford to be ignorant of them, while to twist them into another semblance only invites attack, generally effective attack. Mr Holland’s poor showing in his speeches on land occupation and his party’s grotesque performance in policy-making ought surely to convince their followers that there is something very lacking in the Opposition’s leadership.