LAND TENURE.

Press, Volume LXI, Issue 18415, 23 June 1925, Page 10

LAND TENURE.

LABOUR'S "USEHOLD"

POLICY.

MEMBERS AT VARIANCE.

(special to "tee press.")

AUCKLAND, Juno 22

Labour's "usehold" land policy having been rejected at the Franklin byelection, it should bo dropped by the party, is the opinion of Mr W. J. Jordan,' Labour M.P. for Manukau. That view is scouted by Mr M. J. Savage, M.P. It is ridiculous to suppose, he says, that because the policy was tried and was rejected in one electorate that it will be dropped from Labour's platform.

In explanation of his viewpoint, Mr Jordan said that in the, Parliamentary practice of older countries, where the .Referendum does not exist, by-elections were often made the test of a, particular policy item. In fact the custom had been carried so far that in some cases a particular member had resigned his seat to obtain the opinion of'the electorate on a point of policy. If it were endorsed by the return of the man advocating it the party felt it iha<l a mandate to pursue it, but if he were defeated so was his policy, and it went into the wilderness with him. Similarly the Franklin electorate had been asked to deliberate on the "usehold" land policy and had rejected it. Mr Jordan argued therefore that the Labour Party should abandon the policy in the absence of the Referendum. A by-elec-tion fought on a single issue was the best test of the people's will. It could not be accounted political cowardice so to abandon a policy. It was no use trying to force a thing on the people that they would not nave. Parliament was representative of the people, and while members might place before the electors ideas which they thought good they could not force their acceptance. Tho people's will was sovereign. Moreover, if a. party were returned on one.policy 1 it had no right to go beyond it-when in power. In the case of Franklin the "usehold" policy had had a. "fair try

out" in a typical New Zealand electorate. It was mado the chief issn» the quality of either candidate being not questioned. Matters of sentiment entered into the contest very little, neither did the Government's land policy, because it was not advanced. * Almost the single issue was "usehokL" It was rejected by an overwhelmuMj majority, and the Labour Party should acoept the people's decision. Asked if the Party intended to drop the policy, Mr Jordan said he did not know. He was not speaking for the Party, but expressing "his opinion as to what it should do. "And," he con- :'i eluded, "I expect I shall sect a wig. ging for giving my own views." Mr v Savnge was quite definite in d». owning on behalf of the Labour Party any intention of abandoning "usehoW as the land tenure, system. \Yben th* question was put to him he said: ,c Xoi on your life. Because the policy has been submitted in one electorate and » turned down we will not therefore remove it from our platform. It is oar job now to make the 'usehold' temua better understood and show how it applies in certain conditions. A fidl" explanation of the policy will be issaei in pamphlet and circulated at widely as possible. lam sure a great ';' many electors in Franklin did not uk> ' derstand what we propose, and a great ,'f many others did not want to mider» ;, stand it, as they have made their '* money, not by farming, but by seßug I farms—land speculation. Mr Jordan is not expressing the opinion of tb» A Labour Party. There is no danger of .$ the Labour land policy being >*