LABOUR PARTY’S POLICY

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXXII, Issue 19439, 27 October 1925, Page 6

LABOUR PARTY’S POLICY

EXPOUNDED BY MB. PETES FRASER. LAND QUESTION DISCUSSED. Mr. Peter Fraser, a Labour speaker from Wellington, addressed meetings at Castlecliff, Gonville and in the city yesterday afternoon and evening, and was accorded a good reception at each place. Mr. W. J. Rogers also addressed the electors, and at the Labour Party’s rooms last evening referred to the basic wage question, housing, and the cost of living generally. In dealing with Labour’s land policy, he said they were out to prevent laud speculation and the farming of the farmer. The kind of this country belonged to the people of the country and not the speculators. At present the people of a community created laud values and tho speculators

reaped the benefit. After traversing other mailers included in the Labour policy he declared that Labour stood to meet the requirements of the common people.

Speaking at the same place, Mr. Fraser said ho was in Wanganui with the greatest of pleasure for the pur- | pose of saying a few words on behalf I of Mr. Rogers, his friend and colleague, whom ho would like to see sitting in the ranks of Labour in tho House. This election, he added, was conspicuous for the fiction that wHs being concocted in regard to the Primo Minister, the disappearance of the National Party, and the fact that the Labour Party was at last face to face with the Reform Party. In referring to the Prime Minister, the speaker said he was an ordinary mediocre individual. A voice: And a good soldier.

; Mr. Fraser said that as an individual I he had nothing against him, but in his lopnion he was an ordinary mediocre ' individual like themselves. Continuing, he said the Liberal Party was ' dead and buried. He was at the burial j service in Parliament, and it was a tragic affair. Instead of snatching up ! the torch of liberty and democracy ■left by Richard John Seddon, they hud ■extinguished it. He reminded his hoar- • ers that at the coming poll a vote for I the National Party was a vote for ReIform. It was either Labour or Anti- • Labour.

He declared that the National Party 'was performing no useful function in ■the government of the country to-dlay. lit was an irritant, a danger and a men'ace, and the best thing the electors could do was to cut it out altogether. 'The speaker proceeded to outline the .Labour Party’s policy in regard to !housing and the making of provision i for motherhood endowments, after ;which he discussed the land policy. ■ Mr. Frtaser said that Labour 's land ipolicy was something entirely out on 1 its own, and they did not ccfatemplate I the people leaving the land or wanting 'to surrender it. On the contrary, if | any number of people under Labour’s policy wanted to give up their bold J to property they occupied, then it would be proof positive that their land policy was a failure. Labour’s aim was to make it possible for people to I remain on the land, and further to ! make it possible for every family to I get a home of its own, and allow the

; ,mildren to inherit it. Labour’s opponents eud.eavuu.reu. io represent that i their land policy interfered with the ! right of inneriUauce, but that was : never contemplated. So repealed, hud j been the misrepresentation in this reLpect mat at tne last conference they had decided to for ail time linalise the issue stipulating that on no account did ihe policy interfere with the right of inheritance. They were so conlident of their land policy being sound that they wanted to be criticised intelligently. If there was a weakness it I would be put right, but he would like jto see the weakness. Many of the I other problems that presented them- ! selves to the country could be solved | by the Labour Party in a comparativeIly short space of time, .but it would take years of administration and work I to arrive at the solution of the land problem. The Labour Party', tOxCarry out its land policy, would have to have the support and co-operation, not only of the community generally, but of the people who worked on tho land. Mr. Fraser declared that there would be no injustice in providing homes and land upon which people could earn their livings. Labour did not stand for taking anything that belonged to a person. On the contrary, it wanted to make it possible for the average person and family to own vastly more than ever it owned before. Mr. Fraser went on to deal with the settlement of ' soldiers on the land, and in conclusion made an appeal for the support of Mr Rogers’ candidature. At the conclusion of the addresses, cheers were given for both Mr. Rogers land Mr. Fraser, no questions having been put to either speaker.