MR VEITCH SPEAKS.

Bay of Plenty Times, Volume XL, Issue 5775, 28 February 1912, Page 5

MR VEITCH SPEAKS.

AGAINST COMMERCIAL AND

LAND MONOPOLY

Interest was given to the debate by Mr Veitch rising. In the course of his remarks, he said it had been stated that the demands of Labor were unrea conable, but it was only human natui" 1 to ask for as much as one could get. One thing was certain and that was that the workers had never yet obtained anything out of reason. Ho stated that the Governor's Speech, far from being an insult to the intelligence of Parliament, appealed to him wry much. He dealt with several subjects contained in the Speech, especially with the co ct of living. He disagreed entirely with the theory that the increased cost of living w^as due to increased wage". In his opinion the chief causes were commercial monopoly, land monopoly, and taxation to raise money for public works. He admitted the honesty of the Government's remission of duties on the nece?saries of life, but the mmi?sion had been collared by the commercial monopolists. He contended that it was ten times more reaconable for the State to fix the prices of a commodity than that its price should be fixed by commercial monopolist". There existed in New Zealand a pytem of monopoly so complete that it was practically impossible for any fmall or financially weak firm to operate successfully in opposition to it. He regretted that a Monopolies Prevention Act had not yet been put into operation.

As to taxation for public works, every year from £600,000 to £800,----000 was transferred from the consolidated revenue to the Public Works Fund. It seemed like good finance, and, looked at purely a<? a matter of finance, its soundness might be good finance. What he objected to was that the money was contributed from the earnings of the rank and file, and was spent in developing the country to the immediate and considerable benefit of the landowners, [n regard to the freehold question he had a proposition to put forward, namely, that the State should be allowed to repudiate its bargain made with the freeholder 3. If the leaseholder were to be given the freehold at the original value why not allow the State to resume at the original value the land which it had parted with? In conclusion, he said that the workers were leaving the Arbitration Court because it failed to give them satisfaction. Arbitration was right in principle. The Court had been established to abolish sweating, and had done so thoroughly. At present the Court's business should be to investigate monopoly. Both employers and employed were being squeezed by monopolists.

Mr Veitch was warmly applauded by both aides on concluding.