The Grey River Argus SATURDAY, April 1, 1944 ILL-CAMOUFLAGED TORYISM

Grey River Argus, 1 April 1944, Page 4

The Grey River Argus SATURDAY, April 1, 1944 ILL-CAMOUFLAGED TORYISM

One of the longest debates at this sitting of Parliament has been that on the local elections meas,surc, and the outstanding feature has been the manner in which the Opposition has fought shy of the main issue. They used the committee stages entirely in an obstructive way, and repeated the same tactics in the House. After leading landowners to think their interests were being advocated, the Nationalists have instead used I heir opportunities solely to make party capital, without attempting to improve the Bill. The real issue is obviously whether residents of rural areas shall all have a due voice in local government, or whether control shall remain in the monopoly of those only who own property. It is a far cry to the times when the franchise was denied to all but big landowners in the Old Country, but it is evident that even in this country the idea survives that power should remain as far -as possible the monopoly of those owning the means of production. The Opposition has urged all sorts of side issues in attempts to discredit this legislation, but has studiously avoided any acknowledgement that the ultimate object is to withhold votes in rural areas from residents without landed property and from women generally. Invited by the Prime Minister to state their attitude in this regard, the have chosen to quibble over technicalities of Parliamentary procedure, and of enrolling those to whom the Bill -would extend the franchise, but none has candidly admitted that it is desired to continue the denial of voting rights to all rural residents except such as possess property. The nearest approach to an admission of this object has been a suggestion that the reform proposed would possibly divert some county expenditure from channels dictated by landowners. This amounts to an admission that other residents are meantime a minor consideration. It is eminently desirable that rural population should be augmented, and the means to that end would he Io improve rural amenities. Ju any case the holding of land is no absolute monopoly either in law or equity. The whole community has a certain interest in the land and the whole country contributes to its value and utility by financing development largely from the national exchequer. Except where indespensable for production, rural residents eligible for the forces have had to fight in defence of the country, and thereby have concreted their abstract right to vote where they reside. The Opposition have expressed concern only for such soldiers oversea as may be property owners in. con-, nection with this legislation. But if they are to be considered as soldiers, why not also rural residents serving oversea who lack landed property. The Opposition has nut up a very poor exhibition in this matter. Its younger members have betrayed„ their juvenility (rather regrettably. It is not inspiring for the public to listen to them on the radio when they air their ignorance of Parliamentary procedure and pretend that they are pleading the cause of the farming community. The ordinary farmer has nothing to fear from the endowment of all country adult residents, male and female, .with the, local body franchise, in the same way as town residents. On the other hand the progress of the country districts has been retarded through monopoly of voting rights by holders of property.