POLICY OF LABOUR

Waikato Times, Volume 117, Issue 19566, 3 May 1935, Page 3

POLICY OF LABOUR

CANDIDATES SPEAK OUT. MR LAFFERTY AT FRANKTON. BOROUGH AFFAIRS REVIEWED. Some trenchant criticism of the administration of borough affairs, in which the Garden Place scheme figured as a major subject, was voiced by Mr C. Lafferty, Labour candidate for the mayoralty of Hamilton, and the Borough Council, in addressing an electors’ meeting in the Frankton Town Hall last evening. The speaker had an audience of about 350, Mr B. 11. Andrews, presiding. At the outset of the meeting, Mrs E. Snoolces, a Labour nominee for the Waikato Hospital Board and the Borough Council, and Mr A. Langstone, another Labour candidate for the council, gave an outline of their policy for the administration of the bodies to which they aspired, Mrs Snoolces advocating closer investigation into accident cases, and deaths at the hospital. She also supportedreductions in the borough electricity charges, and meter rent rebate, and stated her intention, If elected, to press for women’s rest rooms in various parts of the borough, and the abolition of the general purposes committee.

Mrs Snookes’ views were endorsed by Mr Langstone, who quoted the Christchurch City 'Council’s figures as an example of the results of the Labour policy.

The principal speaker, Mr Lafferty, explained that he was a candidate for the mayoralty as well as the council,' so that if the electors did not appoint him to the higher office he was still prepared to work for the borough, on the council. He added that he had served the ratepayers as a councillor for 18 years, and he claimed the right to seek election to the mayoralty, which office he considered should, not be made a profession.

Borough Flnanoes. Referring to borough finances he said that the council to-day was paying £54,000 a year In interest and sinking fund, and its debt amounted to. £BOO,OOO, while the people of Hamilton carried a borough debt of £’so a head. This would not be so bad if the programme of works Vas completed but this was not so. It was his opinion that every part of the town should be embraced in this programme and the only way to complete it was to enlist the services of iho unemployed. Much of the credit for Hie completion of the scheme as far as it went must be given the unemployed. The council's negotiations concerning Garden Place Hill were discussed at considerable length''/ by Mr Lafferty, who reiterated his previous charges against members of the council, that attempts had been made to push the scheme ahead without the sanction of the ratepayers. He alleged that it would have been possible for the council to remove the hill without first going to the ratepayers, and contended that ’efforts had been made to influence the Minister of Internal Affairs, to allow the scheme to proceed. He added that he would give the Minister credit for having been fair and above board In this matter at all times. Reductions in the borough charges for electricity were advocated by ihe speaker, who mentioned that in June last year he had moved to have the rates reviewed, but could get little support, from the council. He contended that- under the existing scale the large consumers received the benefit of lower charges, and in his opinion the time had arrived when the unit charges should be reduced. The electricity profits of £II,OOO last year had been of great assistance to the council, and he was opposed to these profits being diverted Into the general account, and being used for the restoration of wages cuts and other purposes.

Offlolals Crltioissd.

The action of the council in granting the borough engineer permission to undertake a commission at Taihape was also assailed by Mr Lafferty who contended that, this was contrary to the terms of the engineer’s engagement with the Hamilton council. If he was to do work outside the borough, application should come through the council, and any remuneration he received should he paid into the borough funds. Mr Lafferty also alleged that the borough cars were being abused by the chief inspector, and he criticised the actions of the Mayor in this matter.

He added that he had been designated the pin-pricker of the council, but if pin-pricker meant one who was not afraid to stand up and express his views he was proud to be known by that title. It was not the man with the greatest show, but the man who had tiie courage to stand up and do his best for the people who made the best mayor. Referring to Ills position on the council he alleged that he had been refused access to the borough files, except by resolution of the council. He had queried the powers of the Mayor and town clerk or any other borough officer in Ibis matter, and subsequently he had. obtained the permission lie sought to peruse the files. At the conclusion of his address the speaker answered a considerable number of questions, including several from silting members of ihe council, following which the three Labour candidates were accorded a vole of confidence.

The Government Committee is reporled lo have recommended I lie acceptance of .Metropolilan-Yickers’ offer to electrify the Brazilian Central Railway. The work will be done in two parts, the first occupying a period of three years and the second 18 months. The total cost is said to he £3,000,000.