NEW CITY LOANS

Evening Post, Volume CVII, Issue 67, 22 March 1929, Page 10

NEW CITY LOANS

Sanction has been given by the Government Loans Board to certain borrowing proposals submitted by the City Council. l In some instances this approval is sufficient; in others it must bo endorsed by the ratepayers at a poll. The Loans Board has sanctioned a loan of £25,000 for the road, work of the Western Access scheme. The whole cost of this work is estimated at £158,530, from which the council proposed to deduct £64,335, made up of contributions from the Tramways and Electricity Departments, and proceeds of tho resale of properties in the Bowen street-Lamb-

ton quay triangle. This leaves a balance of £94,191 to be found from loans. If £25,000 of this is obtained by an unemployment loan, carrying a Government subsidy, there will still be a substantialbalance to be found. The council, how-

ever, is not required to o-btain ratepayer approval of an unemployment loan, and it has another string to its bow. It can borrow also for street works by special order without a loan

poll. The council should state clearly (it has not done so hitherto) how much more it will require to borrow in this way in order to complete the work.

Up to this point, by the use of powers never intended for such a purpose, the council will be able to evade an appeal to the ratepayers. It can begin the •work and spend many thousands of pounds upon it without asking citizens whether they agree. It will be necessary to seek that consent only for the construction of the tramway tracks, which are an essential part of the scheme. The ratepayers will bo asked to vote upon a proposal to borrow £49,400 for tramway track work for the west. Eastern Access proposals, meanwhile, are held over. The Loans Board has quite rightly declined to state whether it approves an unemployment loan for tunnel approaches until it is known ■whether there is to be a tunnel. The council has yet to see whether it can construct the tunnel minus approaches with the amount approved by the ratepayers in 1920. We cannot agree that it is taking the right course in this. The 1920 loan was approved to cover the whole tunnel cost—not a tunnel with no approaches—and the council is not right in holding that if it can carry out the tunnel work alone it is doing the whole job for which the money was authorised. But until it is known what tenders arc received it is unnecessary to consider this question further..

Respecting other items in the loan proposals, wo shall liavo

some comment to make whon

the issues are before the ratepayers. In the meantime the council has been faced with a new complication in the proposal, defeated last night, to havo these relief works carried through at full trade union rates. We cannot support Councillor Semple's proposal as it was submitted. It would be a danger-

ous principle, rebounding upon tlio men whom it was framed to benefit, to stipulate full rates for all relief workers. This would place the B class workers at a disadvantage inasmuch as tho loss on their labour would be so great that there would bo reluctance to engage them. Moreover, it would hinder the settlement of tho unemployment problem by attracting to the city and keeping hero men who would otherwise leave relief work as Soon, as they; could find

otlier jobs. But wo agree with Councillor Hislop that works which are not unemployment relief works in the sense that they arc undertaken to moot an

emergency should be carried out with full-pay labour when that labour can earn full pay. The difficulty is to combine A and B class men on the same job without causing trouble. Councillor Hislop's notice of motion proposes to meet this difficulty by setting aside certain works for full pay. On these "due regard to efficiency" will bo a consideration in the engagement of men. In other words, tho best men (if they are married and city residents) will be first employed. But then what is to happen to the others—who are often those in worse plight? Tho difficulty is one of the council's own making, because it has brought within the relief work schedule works which arc not strictly in that category. It would have boeu wiser to adhere- to tho principle laid down by Mr. Coates as Minister of Public Works that ordinary public works operations should be kept separ-

ate from relief works,