NOTES OF THE DAY

Dominion, Volume 24, Issue 266, 6 August 1931, Page 8

NOTES OF THE DAY

Far-sighted financial statesmanship is the compliment bestowed by The Times- on the successful negotiation of credits for London in Paris and New York, the result of which has been to strengthen greatly the position of the Bank of England and the stability of world finance. It has been pointed out again and again that the admitted shortage of gold could have been balanced by more economical use of the available supply. In a recent address to the British Institute of Bankers, Sir Ernest Cassel declared that the present production of gold amounted to only about two-thirds of the quantity that would be required for maintaining a stable price-level, and this scarcity had a definite effect in depressing the general level of commodity prices. If this condition persisted, the depression of commodity prices would be indefinite and “unlimited.” The new arrangement now announced, holds out the promise that a compensating factor for the gold shortage has been found, and a condition precedent to the easing of the depression established.

Correspondents in Tuesday’s issue very properly called attention to the misleading implications resident in the word “Australasia.” This question has been raised more .than once. Recent events in Australia make it desirable that fresh emphasis should be given to the necessity for dropping the word altogether. There can be little doubt that our proximity to the Commonwealth, together with the association of ideas created by the word “Australasia” among people living 13,000 miles away, had some influence on the reception accorded the last New Zealand loan in London. What is wanted is an independent reference based on the precedent established in the War, when the overseas expeditions from the Dominion and the Commonwealth were organised as a single unit designated the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps. The question is one for map-makers, officials, and popular usage. If the newly-formed New Zealand Natives’ Association is looking round for something to occupy its energies- here is one campaign ready to hand.

When the Transport Bill was introduced, it'was surprising how little criticism it received. Probably that was due to the many other and grave preoccupations of the public mind. At any rate people at first seemed satisfied to hail the Bill as an attempt to co-ordinate our transport system and eliminate waste, a general objective that everyone will applaud. But because the end is unexceptionable, it does not necessarily follow that the means are also to be approved. It is a welcome sign, therefore, that public opinion is becoming interested in the methods by which co-ordination is to be achieved. The latest to look critically upon the Government’s Bill-, are the Chambers of Commerce and it is being realised what exceedinglv wide powers it is proposed to vest in the Minister of Transport, who is also the Minister of Railways. ■ It is interesting to note that, at a meeting of the Wellington Chamber, it was a representative of the Railways Department who moved unreserved approval of the Bill but the Chamber preferred to endorse the important reservations made by its transport committee. It rightly considers that too much authority is delegated to the Minister.

While there will be general agreement that, in a country subject to earthquakes, careful regulation of building construction is desirable, objection may fairly be raised at these precautions being made an excuse for collecting more revenue. Under the Bill introduced by the Government a special fee at the rate of one-fourth of one per cent, of the cost of new buildings erected is to be charged and paid into the Public Account, not more than one-half of the revenue to go toward the cost of administering the Act and the remainder to pay expenses of investigating improvement of building designs in relation to earthquake resistance. Had this fee been collected on buildings valued at £7,136,000 completed in 1929, the return to the State would have been £17,840 and in either of the two preceding years over £13,400 would have been netted. Since much of the work is still left to the local bodies, should the Government require up to half of any of these sums to administer the Act and is not the remainder (of half or more) a large amount to allot annually to investigations to improve building design? Also, will local bodies continue to charge for permits on the present scale and to what expense are they to be put in engaging the services of a technical adviser on Dians?.