Dangers of Labour Rule

Hawke's Bay Herald-Tribune, Volume 81, Issue 65, 9 December 1937, Page 7

Dangers of Labour Rule

"DISGUSTED."

Sir,— It is with reiief that inany people will welcome the approaching election, jvlien they will have the opporiunity of rectifying their mistake of November, 1935. Perhaps if the LaboUr Government adhered strictly t,o its platform it would merit less condemnation, but as a Conservative-Labour hybrid, it portrays the bad points of both. while the gOod ones are conspicuous by the?r absence. With regard to industrial enterprise, it is time we woke up to this masterpiece of socialisation, for under it individual effort and responsibility will, rapidly disappear and it is not diffioult to visualise us all "Heiling" Mr. Savage or maybe even singing the "Internationale," assisted with a little "gentle persuasion" borrowed from Moscow. Not so long ago the Government stated that they were liable to make mistakes, but that when they realised they had err.ed they would hasten to remedy tliat error. ,Yet I know of a ease which has been taken to thq meinber for the electorate and tw0 Ministers, but they all prefer the role of spectator t0 this particular injustice. In another instance an offence was brouglit before the Minister concerned and his "investigation" consisted _ of writing to oue of the parties participating in the offence to ascertain whetlier the alleged offence had been committed l I wonder what public opinion would be if a judge and jury, in a criminal ease, disregarded all witnesses and evidence and reiied for the verdict upon the accused's own admission or denial of guiltl It sounds ludicrous when applied that way, but it migbt yet como to pass if Labour stays in long enough, tor people do follow their Jeaders. Then we have this wondrous "Fair Rents Act" designed, so we hoped, to protect tenants and landlords of working rnen's homes. However, by now wo luu e learned to expect a trick in nearly all this "humanitarian legislation." May I point out some of the most glaring anomalies of this particular Act. fcSection 4 stipulates that the Act binds the Crown. Yery nice indeed on Ihe surface, but take a glaUce at Section 3 sub-section 1 (a), Here it is stated that nothiug in the Act applies to houses let for the first time after the passing 0f the Act. Now, since all the Labour Government's houses ei'ficted under its State housing scheme will be let for the first time after the' passing of the Act, it is clear that the Fair Rents Act will not apply to any of them, so tenants can. expect no protection from that source, if the State chooses to raise its rents or dt> any of the unscrupuious things it prevents private landlords from doing. Section '3, sub-section I (b) states that houses not let as dwelling-houses at any time since November 27, 1935, and before the passing of the Act, do not come under the Act. "Well, if a liouse happened to be vacaut for repairs, additions or any other cause, during that time the landlord ancl tenant escape the restrictions on a very frail point. The landlord might have another similar house occupied all that time , this one would be subject to the Act. (c) and (d) of the same section and sub-section restfict the applxcation. to houses let at £156 or less per annum (whether or not on"~an annual basis) on the passing of the Act, and between election and the passing of the Act respectively. There is no reference to the value of properties, so rehts can be out of all proportion to th© capital value. In holiday localities and places where the housing shortage is acute, cottages, baches and flats of very little value have been let at ridiculous (rentals Which should have been the subject of prosecution under the profiteering law. Yet this very profiteering (one week at more than £3 is sufficient) is now being held up by the Labour Government as an iinpediment to the present tenants protection under the lrair A nL Vnnrfa

— — - December 6, 1937.