The Sun 42 WYNDHAM STREET, AUCKLAND TUESDAY, OCTOBER 22, 1929 A HOUSE WITHOUT A LEADER

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 800, 22 October 1929, Page 8

The Sun 42 WYNDHAM STREET, AUCKLAND TUESDAY, OCTOBER 22, 1929 A HOUSE WITHOUT A LEADER

IT is to be regretted that Sir Joseph Ward’s indisposition, which 1. happily neither dnlls the bright alertness of his political intellect nor weakens his courage, still deprives Parliament of the influence of visible activity and ability on its leader’s part. The House of Representatives has been poorer than ever because of the Prime Minister’s enforced absence-, while the admittedly immature Administration has been more or less as a flock without a shepherd. In these circumstances the Opposition has had to hold its fire and may have, from now till the end of a shallow session, to remain content with the firing of blank cartridges. As things are today, nothing different or more valuable may be expected. Since in politics there is nothing more effective than wise leadership, the people throughout the Dominion, irrespective of political partisanship, will not only give full sympathy to the Prime Minister, but will hope in frank sincerity that a temporary absence from the hurly-burly of party warfare in Parliament and a tranquil rest may restore him quickly to physical strength and administrative vigour. In view of Parliament’s meagre record of sound work this session, most observers of legislative service had hoped that a good end would have been made to a lamentable period of political business. Even that hope must now be dispelled as a foolish dream. Without the activity and presence of an able leader the Government and the House together will have to be satisfied with bringing to a close within a fortnight or so a long session that has been distinctive only in its extravagant waste of time and public money. Several important Bills have yet to be considered, but great optimists alone would expect them all to go into the Statute Book this year. And there is no lack of reasonable excuses for postponing two or three until next session. Indeed, it would be all the better if the Transport Bill, for example, were held back for reconstructive consideration. And there need be no further discussion about introducing an Unemployment Insurance Bill before Parliament understands the difficulties and expense involved in such an experiment which, in other countries already, has been proved a charitable failure. It is obvious, however, that the Government intends to go on with its provocative Land and Income Tax Bill, and is confident of getting it squeezed through the divided House. The Acting-Leader (the Hon. G. W. Forbes) has asked that the Bill should be taken in its Committee stage today as a measure of urgency. And Sir Joseph Ward has issued a written statement, shrewdly devised for the purpose of disarming hostile opposition to. his taxation proposals. He deniea-that the policy of increasing taxation (instead of reducing it as he guaranteed to do in the twinkling of any eye) is not meant in any way to provide an impressive surplus at the end of this financial year, but is simply a necessity for balancing the national accounts. In the plainest of terms the Bill does not represent a political breach of promise at all; it is an exercise of administrative duty. In Sir Joseph Ward’s own plaintive words: “I have no option but to do my duty.” That is precisely what his predecessor (Mr. Downie Stewart) said, too, in difficult circumstances and, having done his duty, was dismissed with the Reform Government from office.

Unless a great surprise lurks in the House, the United Government should succeed in driving its Land and Income Tax Bill through the final stages. It is a double-barrelled financial gun; one barrel is loaded with the primage duty, which the Labour Party loathes, while the other is filled with buckshot for the big landowners, which the Reform Opposition hates. The fate of the Government is in the Labour Party’s hands, and for that reason the United Administration is not doomed. Labour favours land taxation, ahd will accept the primage duty in order to whet the party’s stronger desire. Thus the Government is perfectly safe. It may be jostled into making some concessions, but it will net be bruised in the process. As for the rest of the Government’s programme the rapid approach of Cup Day at Riccarton will set the final pace of politicians. Meanwhile, a very genuine sympathy is with the Prime Minister.

AN EMBARGO ON FLATS

IN exercising a temporary veto over further permits for the erection of blocks of flats, irrespective of the type of dwelling proposed, the City Council seems to be merely endeavouring to cover up some of the defects revealed in its system by the recent examination of the Town-Planning Board. The obscure purposes to be served by this manoeuvre are only equalled by the painful inconsistency shown by the council throughout its recent dealings with architects and builders concerned in erecting blocks of this character. The City has by-laws with which all builders and architects are obliged to be familiar. In their plans they are careful to provide for observance of the by-laws. Yet, without any warning, plans prepared in complete accordance with the by-laws may be held up by the council, as they are being held up at the present time. In the case of buildings affected by the veto now in force, these in at least two cases are similar in plan and character to many other buildings erected in the City in the past few years. If they differ at all from the large blocks of flats which have now become such a feature of the fringes of the City area, the distinction is that they embody refinements and improvements not included in the buildings already in existence. Hence it is the more difficult to understand why the erection of improved buildings should he held up through a mere quibble. The only inference is that there is no basis of reasonableness in the manner in which the City grants or withholds its permits. The question is reduced to a mere matter of luck—good luck if the builder finds the City Council in one of its dormant moods, which permit him to have his plan expeditiously endorsed, and bad luck if it happens to he embarked on such a heresy hunt as, for no particular reasons, it is engaged in at the present moment. Today a meeting of builders and others interested is being held to discuss the question, and the ridiculous situation that has arisen may do good for this reason: the strong protests against it will compel the City Council to clarify its interpretation of the by-laws and introduce a more conciliatory spirit into the administration of the building inspector’s department. City architects of the highest standing could quote scores of cases in which their plans have been held tip on the most trifling points, and they could also cite many instances in which a conflict of opinion between the building department and the fire brigade authorities, over the type of escape appliances to be used, has been apparent. Even in the recent bachelor flats inquiry it was revealed that prominent members of the Town-Planning Committee of the council had no acquaintance at all with sections of the buildin’g by-laws. Possibly it is these councillors who, in a spirit of illogical remorse, are behind the present obstruction of important building operations.