THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 1931. SHARING A BURDEN OF LOSS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20791, 6 February 1931, Page 10

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 1931. SHARING A BURDEN OF LOSS.

The people of this country have shown, without hesitation, that they regard the burden imposed by the Hawke's Bay earthquake disaster as one to be shared. Their eagerness to contribute relief funds gives convincing evidence of that. There is reason as well as sympathy in this view of things. The losses suffered by the victims of the disaster are very heavy, in many instances crushingly so, and their rehabilitation is necessarily a matter of widespread concern. What is to be done about it has become a question calling for very serious thought, and to it there ought to be given immediate attention. It is not one for precipitate answer. The estimation of personal losses cannot be made without investigation, and this is beset by difficulties. This, however, can be emphatically said: sympathetic investigation should be undertaken without delay, and ways and means of rendering assistance be painstakingly considered. Concerning the relief funds, the contributing public has a clear right to expect an- expeditious handling of the position. If the urging Of this should seem to assume any degree of unconcern on the part of the responsible authorities, that idea can be disclaimed at once. The Government has given proof of its deep and practical concern. But memories of what happened during and immediately after the Murchison disaster are still painfully keen, and there is consequently a fear of a repetition of that. Then contributions poured in, a very gracious stream, but the aid it was intended to give was altogether too slow in reaching the needy. Distribution, was dilatory ; there is reason to believe that it was not altogether equitable. In the, present instance, the need is greater in volume and more widespread. A populous town is to be evacuated immediately. From it and from adjacent places refugees have already gone in considerable numbers. Ruin is left behind, but it also accompanies a very large number of these unfortunate people. Most of them have lost their livelihood. Many are positively destitute and in pressing need of the necessaries of life. What is being given to the relief funds ought to be made available at once. Even a day of unnecessary delay will be too long to excuse.

This duty, however, is not the only one calling for prompt action. With the wise decision to evacuate Napier comes a necessity to decide without delay what is to be done there particularly and how it' is to be done'.. The fundamental question upon which many others depend is whether Napier, as a port, a business centre and a residential town, is to be reconstructed. This will entail a finding by experts, mainly geological and engineering and commercial. It is pre-eminently a case for handling by an expert commission, charged to do more than make a report. It should be empowered to give practical advice and to carry out any approved scheme of reconstruction, if its advice takes that direction. A suggestion has been made that Parliament be summoned for an early session, in order to discuss the position. There are aspects, it is true, that must be considered by Parliament, but a very great deal ought to ■be done immediately by the Government. It has its departmental research officers, who can associate with themselves, if need be, other technical experts. Proposals can be formulated by such a body. They ought to be, at least in preparation for any further investigation Parliament may desire. Without definite proposals, based on. technical investigation, Parliament will be in danger of . talking all round the question in a hopelessly futile fashion. Steps should be taken by the Government at once to provide Parliament with a basis for decision. Side by side with this immediate investigation and preparation of proposals, assuming that somo plan of reconstruction is deemed feasible, should proceed the work of dealing with the debris in the devastated areas and the repair of damaged systems of communication in all its branches.

Theso tasks will mean very heavy expenditure, of course, but that is no justification for shirking it. The Government has resources of money. They are not unlimited, but if they are concentrated as they should be on dealing with this national emergency they will be found adequate for what ought to be put in hand in view of any practicable project of reconstruction. As to labour, the Governrnent has an unlimited reserve of man-power in this time of unemployment. The Government has a clear course. It should determine on eliminating for the present all public works expenditure on doubtful projects. There are many things that can wait. Some will be best left alone for an indefinite time. _ This cannot wait. To bring all available resources to bear on it immediately is an urgent necessity, ihere need be no hesitation in diverting the unemployment funds to this purpose; argument against such a diversion is unthinkable, i Proceeding with a practicable

scheme of reconstruction would, indeed, put an end to the present position with respect to unemployment. Action on these lines is not unrelated to the rehabilitation of those who have suffered financial loss in the disaster. For their sakes, the issue ought soon to be decided. It is related, also, to the plight of some of the local bodies, which have to face serious loss of assets required to offset their public indebtedness. Every aspect of the position ought to have prompt consideration. An unexampled emergency has arisen. It must' be met by the taking of adequate measures, even some that in normal circumstances would be unjustified.