TOPICS OF THE DAY

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 60, 8 September 1926, Page 8

TOPICS OF THE DAY

Postponement of the Licensing Bill, while regrettable, was not unexpected. Having been introduced so lato in the session, the Bill could have been thoroughly considered only at the cost of long and tiresome sittings. But the terms in which the Minister of Finance announced the postponement do not hold out bright hopes of better things next session. In the recess, the Minister stated, it was doped that negotiations between the parties mainlyinterested might be resorted to with a view to some agreement being reached on the main questions in dispute, and the Government was prepared to assist to that end. Who are the main parties? Obviously the Minister refers to the organised Continuance and Prohibition parties. If they can meet and suggest appropriate amendments —Well' and good; but we maintain that neither party has the right to represent public opinion upon this issue. The voters are perforce divided into three bodies; but we are- firmly of opinion that the majority of them would prefer sensible reform to either Prohibition, Continuance under existing conditions, or State Purchase and Control. Parliament is the body best qualified to interpret this majority opinion and to scrutinise any agreement made by partisan organisations. If members of Parliament would face the task courageously and honestly, we are convinced they could evolve a better system of reform than is ever likely to result from sectional negotiation.

Having been once bitten there is a prospect of the Government being twice shy of land settlement and subdivision operations. Admittedly there is land which could be made, to produce more and to support more settlers if it were held in smaller areas. Haying had experience, however, of the financial risks of forced subdivision (by purchase), the Government is inclined to let economic pressure, force the closer settlement. There are arguments in favour of the economio pressure, but unfortunately the Government, by its land taxation legislation, has reduced this force. It has enabled a man to hold a considerable heavily-mortgaged area and practically escape the land tax which would otherwise compel him to dispose of part of his holding and retain only so much as the capital at his command would enable him to work to the best advantage. Economic pressure, under these circumstances, has not free play, and to this fact, may be attributed in a measure the existence of farms which are rapidly going back. Where there are legal difficulties hindering subdivision, as the Minister of Lands stated, legislation to overcome those difficulties may help; but subdivision will not be greatly advanced while the man who is holding more land than he can profitably farm is encouraged by the tax concessions to continue to do so.

Not the least valuable service rendered to New Zealand by the Public Trust Office is the application of the amortisation principle to loan transactions. The Minister's report states that this principle is applied to practically all new loans to private borrowers, and is commending itself more and more widely to those who seek financial assistance from the Public Trust Office. Without under-estimating the work of the State Advances Office, it may be said that this activity of the Public Trust is equally important. The State Advances Office is established for the benefit of the borrower. It is the business of that Department to obtain funds as cheaply as possible and to give the borrower the advantage. The Public Trust Office, on the other hand, must consider both borrower and lender. It must endeavour to obtain good security and a good return for investors and beneficiaries, and, at the same time, to give service to the applicants for loans. This the office has done. It has held the balance fairly between borrower and lender; and hai ahown that this

may be accomplished by the application of the amortisation principle. In other words, it has demonstrated the value of amortisation and long terms in general loan practice; and has afforded proof that the system may safely bo adopted by private financial institutions.

Legislate in haste and repent at leisure; this ia likely to be the outcome of the hurried consideration given by the House of Representatives to tho Motor-Omnibus Traffic Bill. There are several important principles in this Bill which should bo thoroughly debated by the House. For example, there is the twopence excess fare which is made practically mandatory. The proviso clause allows only limited discretion to the licensing authority. Then, on the other hand, there is the proposal that if fifty people sign a requisition the transport authority must investigate the request and then refer the question to the Appeal Board. If the Appeal Board recommends a service it must be instituted. If this is to be an effective provision it goes further than it should. The local authority has not complete control of its own finances when it may be ordered by some other body to undertake heavy commitments. But if the provision is not likely to be effective—if the Appeal Board is likely to accept the licensing authority's judgment upon the necessity for the service upon every occasion—then the provision is ■ so much pretence. , It would be better to leave tho door open for competition under reasonable safeguards instead of instituting a monopoly which would protect inefficient and inadequate services as well as those which are efficient. ~