TOPICS OF THE DAY

Evening Post, Volume CVI, Issue 132, 15 December 1928, Page 8

TOPICS OF THE DAY

Public uneasiness regarding the Markets fire will not bo allayed by the statements made in the City Council discussion. In declining to agree to an open discussion, the Fire Board adopted an entirely wrong attitude. Discussion in committee would have been excusable if it had been followed by an open investigation by qualified persons, but if it wero to be the only inquiry the secrecy was not desirable. The suggestion that the public are not entitled to the information makes the matter worse. The Fire Brigade' is maintained in part by public funds,,and in part by funds contributed (though, indirectly) by insurance policy-holders. The service is for public protection—of the | uninsured property as well as the insured —and the public have a right to know whether that service is efficient. In fairness to the brigade superintendent it must be stated that ho appears to have been .anxious for. an inquiry, and it is only fair to him now that the wholo business should bo investigated, All that wo have had hitherto has been an oral report from. a City representative on the board and several statements which cannot bo regarded aa a satisfactory substitute for a full inquiry and report. The City Council has instructed the City; Engineer to make investigations, but it is doubtful if he will be able to cover all tho ground that should be covered. He can judge whether the explanations of the poor flow are feasible, but he cannot inquire fully and effectively into the organisation on the night of the fire, tho adequacy of plant and manning, or other issues that may be raised. It is surely possible for the Fire Board to find some expert who, even at this stage, can examino witnesses and otherwise test the explanations offered. The plea of tho outside brigades' superintendents that they could do nothing because they were not at the fire should not be accepted as a sufficient reason for abandoning an inquiry. What judicial investigation could ever be held if it wero deemed necessary to have a judge who witnessed the events personally? * ' *> * While Mr. Frasor may bo congratulated upon the succoss with which he has pressed for re-enactment of rent restriction, we aro by no means convinced that Parliament, in assenting to this, has done the greatest good to the greatest numbes. Tho legislation is ad.mitfcecU^ warrwej Itom the p-rigrnal

measure in its application. Also tho standard rent is upon a different basis. But those facts do not touch the prinI ciple to which Sir llobcrt Stout alluded, iiu his protest. The responsibility of providing accommodation at a certain rental is placed upon somo owners of house property. This is not done according to a general principle applying to other services or commodities. The grocer is not required to charge a set prico to certain of his customers, nor is tho builder under any legal restraint in tho charges he may make for erecting a house. Further, the contribution does not vary, as taxation is supposed to, according to the ability to pay. The poor landlord with ono cottage may be touched and the rich man escape completely. The unfairness of the principle alone should lead the Legislature to abandon the restriction, but there is a further reason. ' Application of such restrictions inevitably makes the business unpopular. Even people to whom the restriction does not apply are affected. They fear that it may be extended to them, or that some person will try to bring them within its scope. So they make haste to get out of the business and into something which is equally,profitable and less likely to be troublesome. If this scaring effect were mainly felt by tho propertyowners who are characterised as "sharks" there would be less objection to it in practice. Actually, however, the harsh landlords are most likely to stick to the business. They know how to look after themselves. It is the more reasonable owners who first beat a retreat. This is not good for the tenants, and the longer it is continued the worse it will become. There will be less competition and fewer houses to let. The increase of owner-occupiers counteracts this to some extent, but not wholly. There must always be some people who, for business or other reasons, find it more convenient to hire a home than to own it, and the law should not, directly or indirectly, hinder provision being made for them. * * * ' In support of his decision to push on tho completion of certain linos of railway, the Prime Minister may state that these have- already been authorised. That is admittedly so, but general facts affecting railway construction have changed in marked degree Binco some of these authorisations were made. Kecognising this, and realising the burden that was thrown on tho country by tho capital and maintenance cost of uneconomic , lines, Mr. Coates decided some years ago that the engineering survey of future railway routes should be supplemented by economic surveys. The traffic of a suggested new line was to be assessed not merely as it would be when tho railway first went through, but a' it would beeoino when improved communication made closer settlement possible. This was a business-like measure which the Eoform Government's successors should not discard. When Mr. Coates raised this issue as a reason for delaying commencement of work on tho South Island Main Trunk line, the Prime Minister replied that the possibility of loss was also suggested regarding the North Island' Main Trunk, and ,that the line Mr. Coates criticised was tho only one recommended by the FayEavon Commission. • ♦ • It is quite correct that the FayEaven Commission singled out the gap between Ward and Parnassus as a line that should bo constructed, but tho Commission was careful to stato that it did so not because of local advantages, but because of the possibilities offered by its construction "of making v, complete railway transport system between all parts of tho North and South Islands without change of carriage in the case of passengers or break of bulk or delay in tho incidence of goods traffic." This recommendation, however, hinged to somo extent upon another for a train ferry botween Pieton and Wellington. Without such a train ferry there would still be the break between North and South. We do not suggest that the Picton-Christ-chureh line would be of no valuo without the train ferry, but the case is scarcely comparable with AucklandWellington. In any circumstances it is the principle of the economic survey to which we attach importance. Such a survey would not be based only upon the possibilities of local traffic. It would take account also of throughtransport economies. The Reform Government obtained some information concerning the prospects of tho line, and we think that the United Government should make this public before proceeding further. If the investigation has been too narrow it could be extended, but we are sure the public, in the present state of railway finance, does not wish to see a reversion to tho old principle of adding new lines on the politician's estimate of their value.