THE TIMES WE LIVE IN.

Taranaki Daily News, 5 August 1922, Page 11

THE TIMES WE LIVE IN.

INTERFERING WITH NATURAL LAWS. HOW WE ARE BEING HIT, \" fe a_i. THE WORKER CONDEMNED TO HIB RUT.

(By

“Givis.”)

In view of the present difficult times, with its shortages and high costs, it may 'be interesting to discuss how far restrictive legislation of the present and past Governments has been responsible for high costs and shortages. The shortage of houses can be traced directly to restrictive legislation. During the regime of the Seddon Government a Bill was passed, and is still law, known as “The Limitation of Debt Act.” This pernicious Act placed the responsibility on the creditor of proving to the Court that the debtor was earning sufficient wages to be able to pay his debt. How could a creditor know how much any man was earning? How was he going to prove it in the face of any statement the creditor might choose to make? This Act placed a premium on dishonesty. When the Act came into force there was a large body of those who had money to invest did so in house property; in fact, it was the common practice for people to build houses to let, and the writer can remember when it was the exception to find a house being 'built for sale. But when this Act came into force landlords and investors realised that their chances of collecting rents was in many cases doubtful, and they at once concluded that they could invest their money in other ways. While it might not return as much, it was certainly more certain than investing in house property. From the passing of that Act onwards a decline in building operations took place. RESTRICTIONS ON RENTALS. Not many years after the Act was passed to meet the demands the Government came out-with a housing scheme, with disastrous results to the Government. Their efforts did not meet the growing shortage, as the shortage increased of houses to let. The price of houses for sale increased, as well as rents. Then a clamour arose for a restriction of rents and we next have a Bill to limit the amount of rent that a landlord could charge, and a Bill was passed limiting the rent that could be charged to S per cent, on the capital value of the property. This was a further restriction on the building of houses. Who in their senses would build houses to let on a fixed limit of 8 per cent, on the capital value when they could invest their money at 5 per cent, with a certainty of collecting 5 per cent, without having to face tl;e Court and prove that the tenant could pay ? Eight per cent, was a totally inadequate amount, when repairs, depreciation, rates and insurance and loss of rent were taken into account. As a result house building to let went out of fashion, and to-day the man who would build houses to let would be regarded as a fool. The fact remains that houses are not now built to let. Then the Government was forced to take up house building again and empowered local bodies to do the same, and the result has been anything but satisfactory. Of course, as the Government had driven the private individual out of the market they were bound to attempt to do something to meet the condition of affairs created by their restrictive legislation. WHAT NEXT? Then we have a further instalment in the shape of.an Act that prevents a landlord from obtaining possession of his property unless he can show the tenant 1 wlzore he can secure another house, so that although he was the actual owner, even if lie sold the property he could not obtain possession, nor could the person who purchased the property obtain possession of what he had bought; so that we have arrived at a state of things that if advocated by any section of the community would be denounced as destructive of individual rights and liberties, yet we have those extreme socialistic proposals actually the law of the land. It is only a short step to confiscation. In the face of this last Act, who would build houses to let? As the result of the shortage of houses to let, competition became keen to purchase houses, and of course the shortage raised the price, and houses within the last few years have been sold at abnormal prices, so that the last position is worse than the first, as interest charges on borrowed money at high rates of interest on high priced houses exceeds the wildest dreams of the so called rock renter. We have all sorts of theories put forward for the shortage of houses. Is it any wonder in face of the above that there are no houses to let? The wonder is that there are any being built at all, except for owners to live in. HAMPERING INDIVIDUAL EFFORT. To further emphasise what I have already said the last census showed no less than 79 houses in New Plymouth standing empty but for sale onlr vet Parliament does not seem to profit by experience, for instead of reviewing the position and endeavoring to find a cure for the cessation of house building to let, it proceeds to make further enactments to hamper or destroy individual efforts. To show that our legislative efforts in hampering progress is not exhausted the latest proposal seriously made —and the Minister actually stated —that he would aee if a clause to the effect could not be inserted in the Upper House to the effect that it should be an offence to have an empty house. So that even the speculative builder or other person who should dare to build a house for sale and does not immediately dispose of it when completed commits an offence, and must perforce let it and take his chance of collecting the rent by proving to a magistrate that the tenant is earning sufficient to be able to pay. Truly an amazing state ■ of affairs. When .Reviewed one won- ■ tiers how such*laws are tolerated, yet they pass without protest of any kind. We are all so deadly in earnest in endeavoring to secure our individual selves that no organised effort seems possible. The greatest offenders in parsing restrictive legislation have been the Massey Government. no doubt, with an eye to being aide to confound the Lq-bor socialist by pointing to what the’’’ have done to . protect the worker from the greedy capi- | falist. Notwithstanding what has been done at the behest of the Ped Revolu- ; tionwd. the worker to-day finds himself , , just where he was before the restrictions i

ing point of view he is infinitely worse off, and so long as these restrictions continue houses to let will grow leas year by year. PENALISING INDUSTRY AND THRIFT. Not only in the housing question has the Government destroyed individual effort, but it is to be found in almost every walk of life. We had the Board of Trade called into existence by the cry of “profiteer,” and the restrictions in trade created something like a panic, and we had a number of prosecutions for overcharging that only went to prove that the board never ought to have come into existence, and served no useful purpose when in existence. Everyone engaged in business knows that competition can be relied upon to keep prices at a reasonable level. Short of a corner in goods or a monopoly in manufacture there can be no exploiting of the public, and, further, the public can well take care of itself. The everlasting restriction and spoon-feeding can only result in disaster sooner or later. The man in business or the man with something is looked upon by the Government with suspicion and fair game for all sorts of restrictions and demands. It apparently matters not whether a man’s business is ruined by the restrictions placed upon his energie . with the result that prices are increase 1 to meet his increased cost of carrying on his business. Very many of those in business to-day are men who through energy and thrift during the days when these restrictions were not in existence saved sufficient to enable them to get out of the ruck, but to-day it is apparently a crime to be energetic or thrifty, and while the Government calls aloud for all to get busy and produce more it proceeds to pass legislation limiting the energies of those who would be industrious. Take the recent Shops and Offices Act that limits the hours in which business can be done, and what goods you can sell are laid down with great care. It proceeds to define what is a fishmonger and a fruiterer, and so on, and what they are to sell and the hours they are to observe, irrespective of whether they cause them serious loss or not. No one objects to them limiting the hours of employees up to a point but if the employee chooses to work longer hours and get pay in proportion, that should be his business- It seems to be the opinion of our legislators that the less we work and the more the business premises are closed the richer we will become, and while they are, as I have said, limiting the energies of those who would work they are crying out for greater production. SHACKLING INDUSTRY.

Then we have the Arbitration Court that the Government was going to amend, but were afraid to proceed with. I can remember its inception, when there was going to be no more strikes. What a pitiable failure it has been is only too well known. It placed in the hands of the agitator a power for evil that was never anticipated, and the Government is afraid to deal with him, and he goes on merrily fostering trouble and dictating to all and sundry what they shall or shall not do. No man or company has control of his business to-day. He is dictated to by the agitator. I often wonder if the working man really realises how he is bound to be a working man all his life. He is worse off today, notwithstanding all the legislation on his behalf than ever before, but the waster and the incompetent are much better off. The man with ambitions or energy is penalised. He has to carry the waster on his back- The Arbitration Court fixes wages and conditions, but makes no difference in the amount to be paid to shirkers as against the man who desires to play the game. Today his hours are fixed, and the amount he shall receive is also fixed, so that to get out of the ruck for him is impossible. Before these restrictions men worked to get on in the world, and worked hard and long hours of their own choice until they got out of the ruck. Hundreds of them to-day are •found in business for themselves as ft result, but the worker to-day can only work so many hours for so much money, and there he ends, for the law will not let him work more than a stipulated number of hours, except at a price that no employer will pay if it can by any chance be avoided. Thus the employer ia bound to pay bo much money for so many hours, not so much money for so much production, and he is forced to employ certain ipen who belong to a certain union. There is no freedom of choice either with the employer or the employee, and so industry is hampered and men’s energies and ambitions are restricted, whilst production is brought to the lowest point instead of the highest. No wonder the cost of living is high!