The Guardian And Evening Star, with which is incorporated the West Coast Times. THURSDAY, JULY 9th, 1925.

Hokitika Guardian, 9 July 1925, Page 2

The Guardian And Evening Star, with which is incorporated the West Coast Times. THURSDAY, JULY 9th, 1925.

A DEFINITION' DIFFICULTY. Just what the Labor policy might ho cm the question of the land is in doubt still. One of the Labor members was pressed strongly in the House last week and there was not any helpful reply. Air Alunro, the member in question, could not define the mutter any clearer than by stating the land policy was an occupation tenure. In the Upper House something was heard from a member who hailed from the Labor ranks about the land being the patrimony of the people. At Timaru the other nigliL the Kovel. .3. K. Archer, Mayor of Christchurch, went to South Canterbury to speak on the Labor policy and lie said “confiscation had no part whatever in the programme of Labor.” But lie added (according to the newspaper report), “the party believed in compensating people for their rights, hut they did not heiieve

ill giving compensation for community created values, or what was termed unearned increment. Here again the definition is delight!illly vague. “Com-munity-created values’’ has a fine, rounded sound about it, but all values are created by demand, and the measure of that is the number of people responsible for creating the demand. But before the value can be there the land must Iki put. to a producing purpose, and the product must be forthcoming to supply the demand which gives the value yield. The man on the land must put his effort into the production either directly or indirectly, and having performed that service, and had something produced for purpose of natural requirements, is entitled to his full reward. As to unearned increment pure and simple, we may take the ease of an individual who has by enterprise and foresight come into possession of an area where population lias increased, and by reason of the location and the demand, the man’s possession has become of enhanced value. It would be nought but confiscation to take from the owner of the land the fruits of bis enterprise and foresight, because the situation of the property had suddenly grown in value. Originally the land may have been taken up as a speculation. The owner may have seen possibilities, and invested his savings or made other financial arrangements in quite the legitimate way of business to acquire tho title to the 'land. In the end lii.s foresight has been justified and his speculation turns out a rich harvest. It would I>e quite wrong to confiscate his profit earned in so natural a way. The man took the risk and won. Many a farmer takes such risks, not only with land hut also with crops. Good returns from land, as also possible returns. give the key to value. There can he no flat rate of values. Position and the nature of the soil count alike, and naturally with good land, the nearer to a market for produce or i for use for particular purposes in other

walks of business, so values are created. Such values are not accidental. They are natural. They are angled for by every mail who goes on the land seeking to make a living. All hope to succeed. That is their aim and ambition. But the Labor policy would reverse this state of affairs. The man would be robbed of his ambition if his land values were to he taken from him, and the whole fabric of land settlement ami development would be destroyed. The Labor land policy as far as it has been expounded is worse than confiscation—it means the destruction of national stability and natural activity, and is in point of fact dire destruction.