LABOUR’S NEW LAND POLICY ATTACKED

Sun (Auckland), Volume 1, Issue 46, 17 May 1927, Page 3

LABOUR’S NEW LAND POLICY ATTACKED

PRIME MINISTER SEES IT AS DISGUISED SOCIALISM pA S ? V r e " itioism ° f the Labour th 4 o S - and pollc y was given by the Prime Minister in his speech at Dargaville last evening. Mr. Coates dealt with the policy plank by plank, declaring that it "smelt of opportunism and vote-catch-ing. (Special to THE SUN.) DARGAVILLE, Monday. I T U 1 be remembered that the Labour Party, at its 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 Mr. Coates at his speech this evening. “I propose to examine in some detail the main features of this 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 platform, however, remains, viz., ‘the socialisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange.’ The objective of this must include eventually the abolition of private ownership in land. The new land policy provides certainly for ‘full recognition of owner’s 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 the sacrifice of pledges. There have been instances of this in some Australian States.

“The new land policy may be deemed a dash of the old leasehold policy of the Liberal Party of 25 years ago, a policy which did a great deal to break up that party, and which leaseholders themselves reversed whenever fbey had an opportunity of acquiring the freehold.

“The conservation of all State and publicly-owned lands’ is the first plank in the new land policy of the Labour Party,” continued Mr. Coates. “But what does the new idea of conservation amount to? No information is given. ALREADY IN FORCE

“A graduated tax on unimproved values” is also urged, but the system of graduated land taxation is already i force.

“Acquisition (compulsory where necessary) of areas of land suitable for closer settlement and town-plan-ning” 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. Occupation by such usehold tenant would be compulsory, whether or not such areas might be far removed from settled districts.

Again nothing is said as to rentals, and in accord with the Socialistic claim that all wealth primarily comes from the land it can readily be 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 to-day probably provides the cheapest and readiest form of transfer in the world. Was 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 this resurrected land programme include financial assistance to farmers, supply of fertilisers, 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 landworking among the leaders of the Labour Party. •STATE BANK

The institution of a State bank to act as a central bank, with full control of the note issue, is also included in the new policy. Would the leader of the Labour Party explain in what way such a bank would 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 amending 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 committee unanimously recommended the above, in the belief that the various sections were in line with the objective of the party, i.e., that public ownership of land was the only remedy for the present chaos and muddle, and supported the recommendations in the opinion that they were the best method by which the objective could be attained. Thus on the one hand Labour, while emphatically affirming that public ownership of land is essential, nay, is the party’s objective, not 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 hope to capture.

As there has been no disavowal of the main plank in their political platform. viz., the Socialisation of the means of production, distribution and

exchange, the incongruity of urging the principle of private ownership must be transparent. The Labour Party has merely deleted the land planks which they loudly advocated in the Franklin by-election, and at the last general election, and substituted new planks. FLAGRANT INCONSISTENCY

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 smelt of opportunism and vote-catching; it was also a flagrant example of inconsistency, for to be logical the party should abandon the preamble to its political platform, but in deference to the views held by a large section of their adherents they dare not do this. The primary producers of New Zealand would, 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. “MISLEADING STATEMENTS” “The Leader of the Opposition in a series of recent speeches has been indulging, at the expense of the Government, in certain misleading statements on the land question,” continued Mr. Coates. “I propose to show how fallacious are many of his deductions. He finds fault with the Government because there are still a number of large areas of land held by a few individuals, and says that given the opportunity the Labour Party would, by an imposition of a graduated land-tax, burst these large holdings for closer settlement.” Mr. Holland was here confusing value with area, said Mr. Coates. Everyone knew that the very large holdings are not the valuable holdings. Most of them consist of back, hilly, rough country, inaccessible and incapable of being economically cut up into much smaller areas. Taking all occupied holdings, the relative characters of the land held in large areas will be seen, from their sheep-carrying capacity. The average an acre for all holdings, up to and including 500 acres, is 0.77 sheep. For holdings over 5,000 acres it is 0.29, and for holdings over 20,000 acres it is only 0.15. This clearly indicated the value of the land held in large blocks, and no graduated-tax would have any effect on them whatever. LARGE HOLDINGS REDUCED

Mr. Coates pointed out that during the Reform Government’s term of office the area in large holdings had been reduced, while the number of small holdings largely increased. Since 1925-26 the total area in blocks over 5,000 acres decreased by 327,901 acres, although the number of those holdings increased by 64, clearly proving further subdivision within that group itself. The best test as to the economical occupation of land is its productive capacity. Some land produces the best in small areas, while other classes can only be worked profitably in large areas. Sections cut too small have in the past had to be joined up with others to enable one family to make a living off them The old Ballance settlement near Pahiatua is a case in point. Putting sections of that kind together to enable a settler to make a living Mr. Holland calls aggregation.

If it can be further shown that value of production per acre has increased, I think this should be accepted as evidence that the Government’s administration has been in the best interests of the country. The greater the production the better for everyone, producer and consumer. Taking the latest year, 1910-11, prior to the Reform Government taking office, for which figures are available, the average value of agricultural, pastoral and dairying production was 15s 2d an acre compared with an average production an acre in 1924-25 of 33s lid. This seems a very great increase, and it would be wrong to claim that the production per acre of the Dominion has increased to that extent, in order, therefore, to get a true comparison of the volume of production as distinct from the value of production, it is necessary to eliminate the effect of price variations from the comparison. When this is done the figures are for 1910-11, 14s lid an acre, and for 1924-26, 19s 5d an acre, or an increase of no less than 30 per cent, approximately in the production per acre of the occupied lands of the Dominion. This increased production per acre has been very largely due to one of the Government’s special aims, namely, the fostering and developing or the dairying industry on the small-holding basis.

TWO DIFFERENT THINGS Mr. Holland further states that 56 persons own over 4's million acres. He is here confusing “ownership” with “occupation,” two very different things. His figures are taken from the statistics of “occupied” holdings, and the next table shows that less than half of the area is occupied by the freehold owners. No less than 19 million acres of the area is represented by Crown leasehold, covering of course all the big grazing runs among the mountains in the South Island, some of which consist of both freehold and leasehold. Together the total area mentioned by Mr. Holland as being held by these 56 occupiers is 4| million acres, but of this less than half a million acres is freehold. Over 4i million acres is represented by the Crown and public bodies. REDUCTION IN FARM WORKERS “Mr. Holland makes capital out of the fact that for the three years, 1923 to 1926, there has been a decrease of 9,000 in the employees on occupied holdings. He chooses a period to suit his purpose of villifying the Government,” remarked the Prime Minister in his address this evening. “In his dealings with mortgages he took a much longer period, but for this purpose he takes three years only because he knows full well that if he goes further back than three years a substantial increase is shown instead of a decrease.” Mr. Coates remarxed that it was since 1923 that butter prices had fallen so low. The price position of his primary products had forced the farmer to economise in any direction possible. Where he could dispense with employed labour and “turn to” himself he, no doubt, had done so.

There had also been an increase in the use of machines, said the Prime Minister, and this might have influened the position. The statistics, moreover, covered only holdings outside borough boundaries, aid when these were extended to take in adjacent areas such areas would drop out of the statistics, causing an apparent decrease in the number of small holdings and employees.