THE MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

Press, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22370, 6 April 1938, Page 10

THE MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

LABOUR CAMPAIGN OPENED MAYORAL CANDIDATE’S ADDRESS MAJOR POINTS OF POLICY OUTLINED Opening his campaign last night for the Mayoralty, the Labour Party’s candidate, Mr R. M. Macfarlane, outlined some of the major points of the policy that will be supported by the party in the City Council elections. Mr Macfarlane’s address was given in the Choral Hall, and there was an I'ttcndanco of about 350 persons, who listened quietly to Mr Macfarlane and passed a motion of confidence in him and the other of the 'party’s candidates. Other speakers included Messrs E. Parlane and J. S. Barnett, candidates for the City Council, and Mr E. J. Howard, M.P., who is seeking reelection to the Lyttelton Harbour Board.

Introducing the speakers, Mr J. Roberts, president of the North Canterbury Labour Representation Committee, commented that the political persuasions of the candidates of the Citizens’ Association were comparable with those of Labour’s opponents at the Parliamentary elections; and he described the People’s Party a new organisation—as a nebulous body. The Labour Party's representatives, he added, would reflect great credit on themselves, the city, and the Labour movement. Points of policy announced by Mr Macfarlane were: —

More public conveniences. Amalgamation of local bodies. Municipalisation of the milk supplyRating on unimproved vaiue. Simplification of parking regulations. Provision of more cycle stands. Utmost efficiency of departmental administration. Reduction of unemployment. Improved street lighting. Provision of facilities to encourage the use of electricity m homes. Full co-operation with the Govern-

Mr Macfarlane opened his addiesby appealing to electors to enrol. Already much interest was being tavern in the elections, he said, and the Labour Parly’s canvassers were very snngxfine about the result. However, thousands of the parly s support were not on the roll. Anonymous Letters Mr Macfarlane also referred to hL attitude about replying to letters to the newspapers about the elections. He would not reply to anonymous letters, he said, and any elector who wished to do any campaigning would have an opportunity to do so at the party's meetings. He commented briefly too. on his attitude towards leading articles in newspapers during the election campaign. Leading articles expressed the policy of newspapers, and editors wore quite entitled to express their views he said. “I know you will be told of ail the virtues of our opponents, and you will be told that I have no virtues: but that will have no effect on the result of the elections.” Discussing the administration of municipal affairs generally, Mr Macfarlane said it was now impossible to divorce party politics from local body affairs. The growth of municipal administration in recent years had been entirely different from that of the past, and to-day it was vitally important that there should be a Labour majority on local bodies so that the Government might be helped in its work. The position .of the Government and of the workers would be very difficult if Labour did not have a majority on local bodies. Mr Macfarlane went on to comment on the action of the Citizens’ Association in not renominating the present Mayor (Mr J. W. Beanland) for the Mayoralty. “This is a matter that is exercising the minds of quite a number of electors,” Mr Macfarlane said. “The question that is being asked is whether Mr Beanland voluntarily retired, whether he failed to gain the confidence of the association, or whether the association thinks that Mr Beanland is not strong enough to win. I am sure the public would like to know the position. Apparently the association must have found the present occupant wanting. I think the public of Christchurch is quite entitled to have an answer, but I think most people will be able to find the answer themselves.” Reduction of Rates

Criticising the Citizens’ Association for its attitude towards rating, Mr Macfarlane said that at the last general elections the association had said that it aimed at a 10 per cent, reduction of rates. When the City Council was considering the estimates last year Labour members had asked why such a reduction had not been achieved, but the reply had been that the association had promised only to aim at a reduction: it had not promised to reduce the rates. This, said Mr Macfarlane, was hoodwinking the ratepayers. The association had also criticised the Labour council for transferring profits from the Municipal Electricity Department; but the association’s representatives, besides failing to reduce rates, had followed a policy of transferring profits from the Municipal Electricity Department to maintain the rates at the same level. In three years £75,923 had been transferred, and this was a positive proof that the association’s candidates had followed exactly the same policy as the Labour council had adopted. The Labour Party's policy would be to keep the rates as low as was consistent with efficient administration. Frequent requests had been made to the present council for necessary improvements, but it was impossible to keep the rates down if necessary improvements were to be made. No reduction of rates would honestly be promised by any party during this campaign. Policy Points Outlining points of Labour policy, Mr Macfarlane said that more public conveniences were needed. The removal of the Cashel street conveniences to Manchester street was unnecessary. It had cost the ratepayers £6505 money that could have been better spent in providing more conveniences. It had been a gross waste of money. Amalgamation of local bodies in Christchurch was essential, he said. The Labour Party had drawn attention to the multiplicity of local bodies in Christchurch, but very little had been done about it. It was essential to give Labour a majority on the City Council so that support could be given to the Government in its plans for amalgamation. A very important matter was the future of the milk industry in Christchurch. The subject had been frequently discussed since 1927. A special committee of the City Council had

come to the conclusion that the only solution of the problem was municipalisation. This view was supported not only by members of the Labour Party, but also by several representatives on the council of the Citizens Association. Many people, however, did not realise the importance of mumcipalisation in improving the health of the community. The Labour Party definitely advocated ijmmcipalisation, and it knew that many who had opposed it were now its most ardent supporters. The party, however, was willing to submit its proposals to the electors. Rating on unimproved value was advocated by the Labour Party, for this system was the most equitable for the small ratepayer. A reform that the Labour Party intended to carry out if it was returned with a majority was a review of the parking regulations with a view to simplifying them. The present parking arrangements could not continue for long. It was also proposed to provide more cycle stands in the city.

Departmental Efficiency “We also aim at having the utmost efficiency in all departments of the council,” said Mr Macfarlane. “One cry of our opponents is that fche Labour Party is not as efficient in administration as the so-called business men; but the party’s administration of the Tramway Board and of the City Council in previous terms has been more efficient than any other that could be brought forward.” Mr Macfarlane said that unemployment in the city was not so serious a problem now as it had been, but it was necessary for any local body to do its utmost to help the Government in its efforts to absorb the unemployed; and this assistance would be given by a Labour council. If the Labour Party was given control of the City Council it would also co-operate wherever possible with the Government to implement the services and facilities that the Government was offering to the people. . , , Replying to a question on the party s policy about the disposal of rubbish, Mr Macfarlane said that the party would continue to support the policy of scientific disposal of refuse, but would consider the erection of a destructor to dispose of any refuse that could not suitably be dumped in pits. (Extended report by arrangement.)

EOADING AND HOUSING

PROPOSALS OUTLINED SPEECHES BY TWO LABOUR COUNCILLORS Proposals for completing the sealing of streets in the city and for housing old-age pensioners and indigent pei°ons were outlined by Mr E Partene and Mr J. S. Barnett, speaking last night at the Choral Hall at the op , ei ?" ing meeting of the Labour Party s campaign in the municipal elections. Messrs Parlane and Barnett are seeking re-election to the City Council. Mr Parlane said that there were: 248 miles of streets in the city and about 70 miles had yet to be sealed. Those who had to live in. unsealed streets knew the inconvenience and dwco^ fort that were caused by tramc - Parlane 1 said he had been J nf thp councils works commix throughout his entire membership of the cluncil. and the committee ;was always receiving requests for streets to be sealed This could not be done in a year with the ordinary revenue of the council. It would take about 10 to 12 years before all the streets in the city could be put into a thoroughly satisfactory condition. “But people are not prepared to wait as long as that. I have suggested and my proposal has been approved the Labour Party, that a loan be raised so that all the streets could be sealed as soon as possible I have dis cussed the scheme with the City En gineer and his assistant, and they have assured me that it is sound and economical. The City Engineer has given a rough estimate that it would cost, about £150,000 to complete the sealing of the city’s streets. If a loan were approved, the work would be done by the council’s staff, for that is the most economical way. The streets so tinted would last four or five years without having any further treatment The sealing of all city streets is definitely our policy.” Housing Policy Discussing the housing programme supported by the party, Mr Barnett said that housing needs had been considered by the City Council on many occasions. The City Engineer had been asked to prepare plans for a house, to cost not more than £3OO, to accommodate an old-age pensioner and his wife. The plans had been drawn, but the council’s finance committee reported that, because of a previous disastrous experience with housing, it did not want anything to do with the proposal. That, however, was a most extraordinary statement. The council had some years ago built 146 houses at a cost of £IIO.OOO, but to describe its experience as disastrous was a gross misuse of words. There was still a possibility that the scheme would prove a financial success, and it had unquestionably been a great boon to the city. “We asked the council to undertake erection of houses that would be rented at not more than 10s a week,” said Mr Barnett. “We were able to show that it was possible to buy suitable land at from £7 to £9 a perch, and the City Engineer told us that three houses could be built on 18 perches. A house could be built for £360. Tire Government is offering money for house building at 3 per cent., and with all the charges, such a house could be let for between 9s 3d and 9s 5d a week. There is a difference of opinion between ourselves, however, and the Citizens’ Association members about the sinking fund. They say that the annual transfer to sinking fund should be based on a loan term of 15 to 20 years, but we say that the houses we propose to build will be good for 50 years. And we say. too, that sinking fund payments should relate only to money spent on building and not on buying the land. All the objections that may be raised to our proposals can be answered.” [Extended report by arrangement.]