USEHOLD V. FREEHOLD

Press, Volume LXI, Issue 18424, 3 July 1925, Page 10

USEHOLD V. FREEHOLD

, ■ » LABOUR MEMBER'S IDEAS. A VIOLENT OUTBURST. ' .(mbcul 10 "th* riasa.") ■WELLINGTON, July 2. • In the House of Representatives this afternoon, Mr. J. "W\ Mumo, the Labour member who represents Dunedin North, mentioned the "usehold." Immediately there were cries from the Government benches: "What is the usehold?" , *

Mr Munro said it was the policy of the Labour Party. A Eeforp\ member: "Yes, hut what is it?"

A Labour member (referring to the Reform Party): You have no policy. Another Reform member: i'es, we have—the freehold.

Mr Munro: As far as I know, you havo no policy but the freehold. "Why," he asked, "was the freehold tenure so popular to-day? It was because the people on the land —the farmers—wanted to buy the land and to be able to traffic in land. But that was no reason why the Government should allow the policy to go on. Were they to sit down and see no way to stop that? If the farmers wanted to gamble in land, that was immoral, and he would ask his friends on the Opposition benches who were trying to go over to the Government benches if they would, do nothing to check profiteering in land. Why pose as a Christian nation if they did not stop this? He believed New Zealanders claimed to be the most religious people in the world.but were they putting it into practice in any shape or form? He might be a little old-fashioned in bringing up a question like that. If they were going to breed a nation of people worthy of the pioneers and the ancestors from whom they sprang, they should attend to this ( and the housing question, which was practically degenerating our race. Our people on the land to-day were a. class of slaves, as they wore on our 4 w country. Nobody could deny it. .".hat was the reason? It was l>ecnuse of the freehold. What was the Labour Party suggesting? A Eeform member: Now let's have it!

Mr Munro: "The Labour Party the only Party brave enough and bold enough to preach the old ethics that they cot from the New Testament, not the Old Testament." He remembered the early 'nineties when that great man, John MeKenzie, hrougbt down his land proposals for the resumption of large estates. What a howl went up from his friends on the opposite side—a howl of "Confiscation!" "Confiscation!" The Labour Party's land policy was in keeping with every plank of its platform. There was no vested interest that interfered with human welfare like vested interests in the land. The big landholder would have to be ignored and passed to one side as he was in the 'nineties. If ever we ha.ve a Woody revolution in this country, it was not the political Labour Party that was going to bring it about, it was such men as we had in the Cabinet—Ministers of our Government to-day. An bon. member (with emphasis): What is your policy? Mr Munro: Tho usehold. Another member: But what is it 7 Mr Munro said it was quite clear to intelligent people what it was. It

meant ownership by any roan who Wl»|| using the land to produce some 6*S§§ of food or something useful to no one else had any ' right to ho§|f land. ... . -f-^3