LABOUR PARTY AND LAND TENURE.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLIX, Issue 3855, 9 October 1928, Page 3

LABOUR PARTY AND LAND TENURE.

/WHERE DOES IT STAND? COMMENTS BY N.Z. WELFARE LEAGUE. We have read the report of a speech by Mr. J. H. Taylor, Labour Party candidate for Manawatu, as given in the “Chronicle.” On the important qhestion of land tenhre it is somewhat puzzling to know 7 from his speech just where he or his party stand. He quotes the Seddon Government as allowing gambling in leases and later on said, “first the Reform Government allowed the land gamble.” From the tenor of his speech he seems to be against the freehold as he says, “They were all doing well until the Massey Government came in and granted the freehold. Now he is against the freehold system, or is his party against it? A man who has been a farmer for years should be very definite on that question. When we turn to the present official platform of his party we find it reads thus: —“Full recognition of "owners’ interest in all land, including tenure, the right of sale, transfer and bequest.” If that does not mean recognition of the freehold w r e do not know what it does mean. Certainly the platform at the last election was different as it stated “that privately owned land shall not be sold or transferred except to the State.” That clause has been dropped and yet we find candidates for the party in various places crying out against the freehold.

Can Mr. Taylor enlighten us on what this all means. Are the candidates for this party standing on the land policy contained in their platform of 1925 or on the amended platform of 1927? Readers will recognise this is a perfectly fair question to put. If the party recognises the freehold then its candidates should not speak against it and if it does not then it should not be in the official platform. They cannot be for and against the system of freehold land tenure as such an attitude is ridiculous.

It is very easy to talk loosely about land gambling as if the Labour Party had a perfect cure. The Hon. Downie Stewart in the House this session by a simple question showed the absurdity of this profession. He asked the leader of the party, Mr. H. E. Holland, M.P., “how are you going to prevent land gambling if you recognise the right of sale, transfer and bequest?” Mr. Holland did not attempt to answer the question. Mi*. Taylor repeats the cry of his party that the Government is responsible for the depression and unemployment of this last year or two. It is a nonsensical assumption for the reason that similar conditions, even worse, have obtained in Australian States where there are Labour Party Governments in offi:ce. It would be as reasonable to charge the: Coates Government with creating the present transport strikes in Australia. As the question of strikes was touched on by Mr. Taylor we should like to ask him where his party has stood in regard to strikes which have done injury to the farmers and other producers of the Dominion. In these strikes has the Labour Party ever done anything to defend the interests of the producers? We think the candidate was* very unfair in his reflections on what has been done for the Returned Soldiers in New Zealand. There is scarcely another country, where the Government and people have done more for those who served in the war.

It appears to us that he has in joining this Socialist party adopted its very bad habit of making irresponsible statements. He says that “an insurance company in this country, had paid a dividend of 170 per cent., on the paid up capital. We simply cannot believe that statement and, therefore, invite him to name the company, also when such dividend was paid. Not long ago we had occasion to correct his leader when making statements about the insurance companies. It would be of interest to know why this party thinks it necessary to attack private business in the way its members do. No other party has ever attempted that mean method of political propaganda. We find this party in the House naming private persons and attacking them where the individuals have no right to reply. "This is dragging politics in the mud. The party has adopted the policy that it has a right to make charges wherever it likes leaving it to those attacked to prove their innocence. It is a contemptible practice and Mr. Taylor would be well advised to refrain from following this course.”