Grey River Argus FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 1928 A WORD TO THE LADIES.

Grey River Argus, 2 November 1928, Page 4

Grey River Argus FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 1928 A WORD TO THE LADIES.

a longer period than in any other country the franchise has been exercised in New Zealand by women, and it is safe to say that! as a result, the fair sex are in this country better educated politically than in almost any other in the world. For that reason, we. do not think that an election homily which yesterday appeared in the editorial columns of our evening contemporary, headed “Mainly for Women,” will serve its obvious object of discrediting either the Labour Movement or its candidate for Westland. Had the article been fairly conceived,

it certainly would not have quoted only the assertions of lady candidates whose object is to defeat Labour, but would also have given at least some indication of the views held by the lady who on this occasion is standing as an official Labourite. First the Reformer, Miss Melville, is quoted to the effect that “Labour mean! Slate ownership and revolution.” whilst "Reform meant private ownership and evolution.” This good lady evidently regards our State Railways, Post Office, .mines, forests and other publicly owned utilities as neither more nor less than “revolution,” for she uses the words “Stale ownership” and “revolution” as haring exactly the same meaning. To show what a great mistake she makes, in jumping at such a conclusion;'it is only necessary for us to quote. another lady candidate, the one whom our contemporary. enlirley ignores, Mrs McCombs, the veil known City Councillor of Christchurch, and the official Labour candidate for flie Kaiapoi electorate, who,, by the wav, stands, in all probability, Ihe best chance of any to be. the first lady who will grace the Parliament of New Zealand. Mrs McCombs points out that our State railways, forest service. postal and telegraphic enterprises, ami mines, as well as our many hydroelectrical, hospital and other public utilities, are exactly instances of evolution,, and are indeed the very opposite of revolution, not to mention the economic anaichy that exists in so many utilities to-day. The good ladies who would decry pulllie enterprise can only be the dupes of wealthy vested interests who mislead them for party ends. Our contemporary tries on the same trick when it ignores Mrs. McCombs. and instead quotes as a Labour exponent another lady who surprised' everybody, but surprised nobody so much as hetown husband, by suddenly having herself nominated at the last minute as a candidate for Wellington Central, against the Member of Parliament whose electorate.' gives him each time about the biggest majority .that is recorded in the Dominion. This lady is Mis Young (whose husband is erroneously declared . by our contemporary to be the Secretary of the Seaman's Union, in which position he was by that Union replaced some considerable time ago). Mrs Young is quoted by the “Star” as describing Mr Peter Fraser, the respected Member for Wellington Central, against whom, she is standing, along with other leaders of the Labour Party, as “extremists” or “Red Feds.” No doubt, Mrs Young has simply got to find some excuse for nominating herself as a Labourite against a Labourite who stands high indeed in the estimation not only of the vast majority ill his electorate, but , of every .Member of the New Zealand Parliament. Now we would like to say just one word about those candidates who come forward as Labour representatives in quest of Parliamentary seats, without either the sanction or the approval of the Labour Party They have absolutely no claim or justification io speak lor Labour, beyond that which belongs to them in their personal or individual capacity. “Women generally should be careful about, supporting Labour candidates,” says the “Star,” “when two women of opposing political opinions (meaning, ol course, the Retormer Miss Melville and Dlrs Young, who is really against Labour’s candidate) agree in condemning Labour leaders!” How very apt those two ladies would be to speak impartially and fairly . of flic candidates they are anxious to defeat, in order themselves lo win ihe race among the fair sex for entrv to Parliament ! Is it likely t,hat Miss Melville would decry the Party by whom she is accredited? Is it likely Mrs Young would consult the interests of Labour in the mailer of contesting the election when she even refused to consult her husband about putting up herself for Parliament? Is it likely. indeed, that her husband . takes what she says anywise seriously,

when he was taking a prominent pat t as a supporter of the very candidate whom she calls an “extremist”? We imagine the women readers of our contemporary will be no more misled by these “authorities' 1 ' against Labour whom it (iuot.es than by its resort once more to its Communist bog-, ey, with dark allusions to Russia. It refers to widows and old age pensions, but every woman in the country knows the Labour Partv are the stoutest advocates of these, and have fought the hardest for them, and are yet determined to better them, as well as to better the family allowances, which they were the first 1o propose, and the most determined to enact. Equal work for equal pay is a slogan in favour of women which the other Parties are content to allow Labour to voice alone. If there are any of the community who stand to gain in. consideration, honour, and freedom from Labour’s advent io governmental power, they undoubtedly are the women. The Labour Movement has organised the female workers, and the Conferences of the Labour Party are notable for Ihe fact that women’s organisations send their own delegates to voice their views and take a hand in shaping the Partv’s policy. Every day women are increasingly entering industry, and as wage earners they no less than the male wa»e earners or dependents upon wage earners will see Ihe wisdom of standing firmly by the Party