AN OLD LAND POLICY

Hokitika Guardian, 28 April 1927, Page 4

AN OLD LAND POLICY

(Auckland " tar. ) Anyone who takes the Lruunits to lollev. in detail the new land policy adopted by the Labour Party's Conlerenee at Napier yesterday will find it has a strangely familiar ring. Conservation of all State and publicly-owned lands, protection of owner’s interests, compensation l’or improvements, graduated t;ix, compulsory acquisition ol lands for settlement, perpetual lease, State transfer facilities—where have wo seen all these things belore? By t!i.‘ time lie has got to the end ol the ]is‘, everybody who knows anything about this country’s past political history must realise that the new Labour policy is simply the old Liberal land policy under a very thin disguise, and that bv strange and devious ways the Labour leaders of to-day have at last got hack Lo the point at which Richard Seddon and the great Liberals of the p. st stood thirly-iive years ago.

Wo must, of course, make allowance ' for the preamble to the new policy—- ■' | iiii!i:• ownership of land ” —which is i.f neoesvilv introduced as-a concession t i halt.- rr demand for the socialisation ■ all s ■■. trees of wealth. Hut with 11 's disfin five feature the now Labour p | ••• simply m ule up of the Liberal i I i. 1 !.’ ’ s el the “nineties” resurrect- ! (.1 without acknowledgement of identiiv. Xo doubt the comjsliincnt- tints pa d to Vr Scddou and the distingi ished democrats associated witli him is sincere, lint under the circumstances it is hard to understand why Labour insists on dissociation itself from Liberalism, and why so many members of the Labour party to-day repudiate so ungratefully the debt that they owe to the Liberal statesmen of the past. We need hardly at this late hour embark upon an endless controversy as to the relative merits of the rival forms of land tenure. In our opinion tin leasehold system has always been well lilted to the needs of the Dominion. The Crown as owner of the land under such a system secures the immense benefit of the automatic rise in land values, due chiefly to public expenditure. on roads and railways. The dangers of the freehold to small farmers without much working capital have been most painfully exemplified throughout the country during the recent “ slump.” The fact that many people “ on the land ” prefer the freehold to the leasehold is wholly irrelevant, if it can he shown leasehold tenure is hotter adapted to their needs and is permanently conducive to the country's welfare. In any ease, there never was the slightest difficulty about finding occupants for land tinder the leasehold system : indeed, the trouble always was to find an adequate supply of land. Moreover, we have the testimony of the present Minister of Lands as proof that leasehold tenure is still popular to-day. Everything that can he said in favour of the leasehold system was said thirty-five years ago by Mr Seddon and Sir .lohn McKenzie much better than anyone is likely to say it now. But why should Labour now produce this old and well-tried Liberal system ns its own, and endeavour to foist it on the country without the faintest acknowledgement of its source and origin.