LABOR AND THE LAND PROBLEM

Hokitika Guardian, 24 February 1928, Page 4

LABOR AND THE LAND PROBLEM

(Christchurch "I’ivss.") in . . |( j- hi Ins spool'll ill Y\ hangari'i, wo woro (tilil in n Press Assnoial inn lelcI'S gram, tlio I .l*ll ilor ul tlio Labour Ibiny 111::1 1 1‘ tlio 11111 ■ I problem his main tnpio, dealing with il, m> the report ran, ‘'in its Innr main pliasos in' aggregution. mortgages, interest, and transs lot's.” Kveryone is woll “aware that a land policy is included in tlio Labour programmV. and most pouplo know that that policy is hasod upon tlio Socialistic theory that while all pi i,v onto property is theft, the ownership .• “f land is somethin*; more than theft. I somot hiug like an oiTence against l u Nature. .Mr dlolland. however, has U lor some time been oinleavonring to "in the hearts of ‘‘the small fnrmors.” whom lie believes to he iniion cent, not to say .stupid, creatures. One means of doing this, he seems to )] . think, is to disclaim against ‘‘the mortgagee and the speculator,” the > s idea being, we suppose, that the farmo er whose land is mortgaged may conclude that if the Labour I’arty were p governing the eoiintry the mortgages would In* ettueelled. It is difficult to • believe that there is any farmer so . simple as to he impressed by any poli- . tieal programme which promises such j, a thing or anything like it. Nor is the average farmer at all likely to r believe .Mr Holland when he says that » ‘'higher wages meant a wider market |l . for tlie primary producers at home and abroad.” For the farmer has seen, and felt for himself, the conse(inencc of tlio policies which ltave inj creased the wages in New Zealand and raised the prices of everything : except the products which go abroad [ for sale. j The Leader of the Opposition produced the time-worn figures upon which the land-taxers and land-na-tionalists—iSoria’li.xt or Liberal —have based their contention Hint hind aggregation is going on. The permanent fact behind these figures is that a great proportion of the occupied land in the Dominion is suitable only . for holding in large blocks, and would not he occupied at all if tlio area a man could occupy was limited to 1000 ’ or 000 or 100 acres, or whatever the Socialists might specify. Ridiculous 1 as is Mr Holland’s profession of concern for the farmer, and absurd as are some of the conclusions ho lira"s from the statistics relating ip land, he is nevertheless emphasising a legrottable fact when he says that only about one in fifteen of the population are holders of land. This fact is not one which tlio Labour Party is competent to (leal with, because Labour policy is fundamentally hostile to land-holding. But it is a fact with which some party must deaf. The weak spot in the Dominion’s economic organisation is the legleet of successive Governments to make the interests of the- primary piol.tcor paramount. One after the other they have sought prosperity thro lgh policies designed mainly to please n d I comfort the dwellers in the towns, arid these policies have been pu 1 for in I the end by the primary producers. I Mr Holland and his Party will not - I be accepted hv any rational person j 'as likely to do anything useful to the £ i primary producer, lint their anxiety to capture the agricultural vote is f I none the less to he welcomed, for il \ may stimulate the rival parties to think more deeply how best they can _ help the farmer. And whatever will . help tlio farmer and make land-hold- P ing profitable anel attractive will lead to increased primary production, and thnt above all things is wlmt the Dominion needs.