ROSKILL ELECTORATE

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 487, 17 October 1928, Page 9

ROSKILL ELECTORATE

MISS MELVILLE OPENS CAMPAIGN LABOUR PARTY CRITICISED Despite numerous interjections a crowd of about 400 accorded a fair hearing to Miss Ellen Melville, official Reform candidate for the Roskill electorate, when she opened her campaign in the Edendale Theatre last evening. Mr. L. E. Rhodes, Mayor of Mount Albert, who presided, briefly referred to the local body experience possessed by the candidate, whom he classed as an asset to the public life of Auckland. “I am quite sure -we all appreciate our responsibilities during the difficult times coming,” said Miss Melville. New Zealand was one of the first countries to give women the vote, and for that reason it would be expected that the womenfolk of New Zealand would take a serious interest in the forthcoming election. For herself, she fully realised the responsibility ywhich she had undertaken and would assure them that if elected she would give the electorate the best service at her command. Roskill was a new electorate and in going to the poll she would not be opposing any sitting male member. This factor had largely influenced her in deciding to stand. Miss Melville said that all would be unanimous on one thing—that was the best possible form of Government according to their considered opinions. In her opinion land tenure was the principal issue in a country such as New Zealand, where so much income was derived from the land. That was a question of vital interest to residents of either town or country. The present system of tenure was one which had been a feature of British government for generations past, and yet at the present stage of the country’s development -they were asked by one section of the community to change it entirely. At the present time their land * policy -was the freehold system. A Voice: And mortgages. Miss Melville: Yes, and there is nothing wrong with a good honest mortgage. , A Voice: All right for the lawyers. The Labour Party’s policy was one of nationalisation—it was practically nationalisation of everything. Voice: Nonsense. Miss Melville: Yes, I agree with you. It is nonsense. The Reform Party stood for individualisation, said the candidate, and Labour for exactly the opposite. Individuals would become merely chattels of the State. UNITED FOR DESTRUCTION “All the United Party appears to be united on is the destruction of the Reform Government,” said Miss Melville. Some of its members had said that on a no-confidence motion they would vote for Labour against Reform. (Applause.) The United Party could only hope to obtain a balance of power. It had no constructive policy, and was devoid of leadership. There were only two issues, Reform and Labour. At this stage the chairman was compelled to call the meeting to order. -In regard to unemployment the candidate contended that the Reform Government fcould claim that it had done the best it possibly could. Unemployment had touched many people in New Zealand, but there was no sudden cure. Voices: What about immigration. Miss Melville said that the introduction of labour-saving machinery and the fall in the prices of the country’s products were all contributing factors. Immigration had been seized upon by opponents of the Government as one of the causes of unemployment, said the candidate, but immigration had been stopped as soon as pofesible. It was a thing, however, that could not be stopped in a few months, and the flow still continued after the supply had been cut off. At the same time, it had to be remembered that England and Scotland were faced with serious unemployment problems, and if the Dominions could, they should certainly absorb as many of their people as possible. , , , Development of the back country and roading would not only open up more producing country, but would help to provide immediate relief. That, said Miss Melville, was one of The practical schemes of the Reform Party. Miss Melville then referred to various statements made by the Labour candidate, Mr. A. S. Richards. Voices: Give us the Reform policy. UNOCCUPIED LAND Continuing, Miss Melville stated that the Labour candidate had declared that a great many people were leaving iNeW Zealand for Australia. Actually, the people who came to New Zealand during the first eight months ot totalled only 3.451— surely not sufficient to flood the labour market —while in-the same period 2,908 had emigrated to Australia from New Zealand. She did not consider that W’as a large figure. A Voice: Oh, isn t it? It had also been claimed that there had been a startling decrease In the acreage of land occupied, but as a matter of fact, Llie position was entirely different. The returns certainly showed a decrease in the gross acreage, but there was a good reason for it. There had been a big increase in land taken for cultivation and that more than compensated for the decrease in the unimproved land occupied. Although the national debt per capita had been increased to £l7O, the national wealth had increased to £650. It \vas useless for Labour to quote one set of figures only, said Miss Melville. As long as the gross public debt was wisely used, and was productive, it w r as a good thing. Of the public debt, £144,000,000 was domiciled in New Zealand, and the interest for that did not go out of the country. The money raised wras being spent in the country on productive works, and th© fact that it was so readily forthcoming showed a very satisfactory state of The Labour Party proposed to increase all p%nsions. said th© candidate, and yet proposgjl to do away with most of the revenue-producing forms of taxation. ~ Voices: We will taxe the capitalist. The Candidate: But then there will neither bo capitalists or capital. All the capital will be writhdrawn from the country. The candidate concluded by criticising the Labour policy in regard to family pensions. SINS OF THE CITY Replying to questions. Miss Melville said that without actual experience she could not express an opinion as to whether £450 a year was sufficient for members of Parliament. In regard to her attitude on the City Council toward Roskill transport. Miss Melville said she was not a member of the Tramways Committee. She disagreed with them in taking over the outside services or their interpretation of the Act. She could not ?ee why she should be saddled writh all the sins of the Auckland City Council or th© Tramway Committee. A vote of thanks was moved by a member of the audience, who stated the question of confidence “could be left to the ballot-box.” The voices were fairly evenly divided, but the chairman declared the vote carried.