ON THE LAND

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 19843, 18 May 1927, Page 9

ON THE LAND

LABOUR S NEW POLICY Prime Minister Hands Out Some Criticism CHASING THE FARMERS’ VOTE. [Per Press Association.) DARGAYILLE, May 17. Labour’s laud, policy came in for some criticism at the hands of the Prime Minister in his speech at Dargaville last night. Mr Coates described it as the work of “amateur craftsmen,” and held that the new policy smelt of opportunism and vrate-collecting. “It will be remembered that the Labour Party at the recent annual conference held in Napier brought forth a new land policy which Mr Holland has been placing before the country in his recent speeches,” said the Prime Minister, “and I propose to examine in some detail the main features of his latest effort on the part of Labour to ingratiate themselves with the men on the land. “It is very evident that the new policy is the work of amateur craftsmen, and is convincing proof that the Labour Party, recognising the absurdity of that political abortion known as the ‘usehold’ policy, has thrown it overboard. The first plank in the Labour Party’s general however, remains—viz., ‘the socialisation of the -means of production, distribution, and exchange. ’ “The objective of this must include eventually the aboltion of private ownership in land,’ ’ said Mr Coates. “Their new land policy provides certainly for ‘full recognition of owners’ interest in all land, including tenure, right of sale, transfer and bequest,’ but there is nothing to prevent a Labour Government once in power from altering its policy in the teeth of public opinion and by a sacrifice of pledges. There have been instances of this in some Australian States. Provisions One by One. “ ‘Conservation of all State and publicly owned lands’ is the first plank in the new land policy of the Labour Party, but what does the new idea of conservation amount to? No information is given. ‘A graduated tax on unimproved values’ is also urged, but the system of graduated taxation is already in force. ‘Acquisition (compulsory where necessary) of areas of land suitable for closer settlement and town planning, is another plank but this is already provided for under the existing law and is the policy of the country to-day. ‘The tenure of acquired land to be perpetual lease conditional on occupancy and use, with periodic revaluations. ’ This has a flavour of the ‘usehold’ about it.

“Again, nothing is said as to rentalSj and in accord with the Socialistic claim that all wealth primarily comes from tlie land it can be readily imagined that a Labour Government would see that the men on the land did not escape with light taxation. ‘State provision of all facilities for the transfer of land,’ is another plank. This is nothing new, for 57 years ago Sir Julius Vogel carried through Parliament the Land Transfer Act which today probaly provides the cheapest and readiest form of transfer in the world. Is the Labour Party ignorant of what was accomplished years before they were dreamt of as a separate party? ‘Compensation for improvements on leasehold land.’ This surely is provided for in the existing law. Other planks in tliis resurrected land programme include financial assistance to farmers, supjply of fertilisers, and agricultural education and research, but these are all provided for by existing laws, and are actually in active operation.

“The application of the ‘betterment principle’ to land values which have been increased by public works and other community enterprise also occupies a place in the programme, but no indication is given of the manner in which the principle may be employed without injustice to the individual. Some of the strongest advocates in the past of this principle have long since recognised the practical difficulties of its application. ‘Development and settlement of unoccupied land by most advantageous methods’ is in itself an admirable objective, but no information is vouched for as to the nature of the methods to be employed, ■ and one would have to search far and long to find much first-hand knowledge of practical land working among the leaders of the Labour Party.

Finance for Farmers. “The institution of a State Bank to act as a central bank, with full control, of note issue, is also included in the new policy,’’ continued Mr Coates. “Will the Leader of the Labour Party explain in what way such a bank will be of use to the farmer or the country generally? Criticising the policy generally ,it may be said that, although the party has jettisoned its ‘usehold’ policy of two years ago, there is room for suspicion that sincerity in appending its land policy is not so much the important factor as trimming its sails in accord with political expediency. > The draft of the new policy concludes ! with a statement that “the commit-' tee unanimously recommended the; above in the belief that the various ’ sections were in line with the objec- ; tive of the party; that public owner-! ship of the land was the only remedy j for the present chaos and muddle, a|H supported the recommendations in the opinion that they were the best method | by w’hich the objective could be at- i tained.” Thus on the one hand Lab-< our, while emphatically affirming that public ownership of land is essential ’ —nay, is the party’s objective—n<> . only recognises, but openly approves, the principle of private ownership. Such blowing hot and cold in almost one breath cannot carry weight with intelligent people, especially the small farmer, whose votes the Labour Party vainly hopes to capture. “Inconsistent.” As there has been no disavowal of I the main plan? | in their political plat-1

form—viz., the socialisation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange—the incongruity of urging the principle of private ownership must be transparent. The Labourites merely deleted the land planks which they loudly advocated in the Franklin by-election and at the last general election, and substituted new planks. They still hope to bring about land nationalisation to square with their socialistic ideals, under which private ownership would have but a small place. Except in one or two instances, Labour has apparently adopted the land system already on the Statute Book, and their new policy in reality contains very little at. all that is new. The policy smells of opportunism and vote-catching. It is also a flagrant example of inconsistency, for to be logical the party should abandon the preamble to its political platform, but hi deference to the views held by a large section of their adherents they dare not do this.

“It has often been pointed, out that many of the evils existing to-day in our land administration arise not from inherent faults in our system, but from post-war world conditions, general in their effects, and also from reactions which usually follow in the way of ‘boom’ conditions locally. The primary producers of New Zealand will, without doubt, look deeply into the ingredients of this vaunted land policy put forward glibly by the Labour Party, particularly as land nationalisation still remains as the basis of the programme by means of which these socialistic champions cunningly hope to divert their support.”