TOPICS OF THE DAY

Evening Post, Volume CIX, Issue 108, 9 May 1930, Page 8

TOPICS OF THE DAY

Under Section 4 of the Wellington City Empowering and Amendment Act, 1929, the City Council ha 9 power, in consenting to the subdivision of land, to impose conditions as to the construction by the owner of j sewage and stormwater drains. This power was sought after the City Council in 1928 found itself compelled to saddle the whole' of the city with expenditure much exceeding £100,000 to provide adequate drainage for Miramar. As we pointed out at the time, such provision was a proper charge upon the estate before subdivision, but at that time there was no power to impose the condition. By the legislation passed last session, however, that power was given, and it was to be expected that in future owners of land would be called upon to pay for drainage, (as they previously had to pay for roading) before the Council passed the subdivisional plans. It was somewhat surprising, therefore, to see the Council at'its last meeting agreeing to find £5000 out of a total cost of £6000 for drainage work at Strathmore Park. While some councillors were of the opinion that the owner might have made a larger contribuj tion, there was general agreement that the Council would have to do the work soone-r or later. It is understood that the case is somewhat-com-plicated inasmuch as part of the cost is for drainage outside the estate, though rendered necessary by the extended settlement. Moreover, the application in this instance was lodged before the drainage amendment became law, and the Council is under a moral and perhaps a legal obligation to meet the owner. But the facts show how necessary last year's legislation was if the public are not to bear charges which should fall upon landowners. Though it is late to shut this particular stable door, it is better that it should be closed now than left open till all building land has been subdivided.

An analysis of the Parnell by-elec-tion figures, which is published in our news columns to-day, emphasises j the point we made yesterday that Reform has little cause to rejoice in! its triumph, and that United-has still less reason for satisfaction. In 1928 Reform secured the voles of 34 per cent, of the persons enrolled; on Wednesday it polled 33 per cent. For the other parties the percentages were: United—l92B 40, 1930 22; Labour—l92B 12, 1930 15. In 1928 14 per cent, of enrolled electors did not vote. On Wednesday the percentage of dissatisfied or apathetic rose to 30. At a by-elec-tion a greater percentage of apathetic may usually be looked for, but in this instance apathy cannot account for the whole of the difference between 14 and 30, especially when the campaign armament of three parties was trained on this small area. Those who remained apathetic under such a bombardment cannot have been much more numerous than the chronically careless who stayed away from the polling booths in 1928. It is reasonable to assume, therefore, that a fair proportion of the 16 per cent, additional nonvoters were not careless but dissatislied. They could not vote for what they desired, so Lhey would not vote at all. On the • personal side there was little reason for such dissatisfaction. All three candidates were acceptable if their policies were right.

It is not carrying the argument too far to suggest that the dissatisfaction was primarily clue to the failure to submit any plan which would end the existing stalemate. Fusion was evaded. Mr. Downic Stewart's cautious approach to the question was carried no further by his colleagues. Thinking electors had no reason to believe that by voting Reform or United they would advance a settlement of petty party issues. They did not wish to vote Labour, so. many of them did not vote. That is the conclusion as we read it from the voting analysis. Will the Reform and United leaders be honest enough to face it, or will they hunt for some other more pleasant interpretation of the writing on the wall? * ♦ ♦ Cessation of Government borrowing does not necessarily mean a stoppage of the importation of capital from outside.' This important point is made by the expert Treasurer of the New South Wales Nationalist Government, Mr. Stevens. Mr. Stevens was head of the State Treasury as a brilliant Civil servant before he became head of it as a Minister. He is therefore a doer and not what Mr. Porter would call, in Rugby parlance, a "shiner." And Mr. Stevens is so far from being a Treasurer with fingers itching to borrow, that he is able to actually find joy in the importation of capital on which his Government is not called to pay 5 per cent, (or more). "I believe," says this paragon among Treasurers—this real financial wizard—"l believe that the inability of the Government to borrow the same amount of loan capital as hitherto will inevitably mean the transference of external capital to Australia for private investment." Citing a case in which British capital is willing to build a railway near Newcastle (N.S.W.), Mr. Stevens says that British capitalists evidently "desire to trade with Australia." Therein lies the crux. As Australian Government loans are transferred to Australia in the form of imports, British capital has hitherto been trading through these loans. A Government in Australia has paid 5 per cent, to a British lender in order that a British capitalist shall send to Australia British goods, all at the borrowing Government's risk. But if Government borrowing st^s, British capital may still send ' its credit and its goods to Australia by itself building railways, etc., there. Thus the British capitalist—instead of a borrowing Government —takes the risk, selects economic undertakings, and prosecutes them without | Government waste and political favours. ♦ • • i , . In Australian cricket circles the hoped-for has happened. The "hoodoo" that seemed to be over the new bowlers has. broken in one place. Of course, one swallow does not make a summer, but Horriibrook's success against Essex will have a moral effect beyond its immediate significance as a feat of play. Other of the experimental bowlers will presently find wickets to suit, and thus, finding their feet in England, they may extend their usefulness until they become effective on an average wicket against any batsman. That is what Australia wishes to see. Fairfax took one step in that direction, Hornibrook takes a bigger one, and optimists will now see the shadow on some scoring board of similarly sensational figures for Wall, a'Beckett, and company. All roads lead to the Tests, and the Tests are lost unless the Australian attack becomes strong not in patches, but averagely. Essex's batting fate makes the fall of' the Australians for. 136 (Woodfull 4) less of a bump. Essex was fighting a tricky wicket, but Australia was fighting a tricky wicket plus i*he 'English cold, to which the southerners are not acclimatised. So much depends upon their ability to acclimatise, which varies sharply in individuals. On one tour, when Giffen put up fine batting and bowling performances in England, it was written of him that in fact hi 3 sterling performance was enhanced by the barely-noticed circumstance that for many weeks he suffered from a burning influenza cold, which should have put him in bed. This is the English counter-weight for the Australian nerve-racking heat. On first innings showing against Essex, Kippax stands cold Letter than Woodfull. A Test team is at its best when its bowlers can bat. It can forgive them some batting failures if they can really bowl. It cannot succeed if they do neither.