DRAG ON INDUSTRY

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LIX, Issue 17950, 30 November 1932, Page 12

DRAG ON INDUSTRY

BUILDING CONSTRUCTION OBJECTIONS TO BILL ! The capital that has been paralysed and the industrial expansion that lias been repressed by Government regulations is unfortunately beyond computation, says a statement issuedi by the Associated Chambers of Commerce. Tho Building Construction Bill of the Government is the latest measure that will have the effect of robbing an industry of its freedom and placing it in a straight-jacket. Twelve months have been available in which to completely recast the bill to meet the objections that caused it to be shelved on the earlier occasion, but it is presented in the same form as it left the Local Bills Committee of the House a year ago. A ready adj mission of the principle that the safo- ' guarding of life in the event of an earthquake catastrophe is desirable, does not mean that the community must be forced to accept an objcction- ' able system. 1 The present bill provides for a bureaucratic, expensive and top-heavy method. It follows slavishly the wellworn grooves of restrictive legislation, Orders-in-Council, costly and arbitrary administration, and an extension of State inspection, which together are smothering many kinds of commercial and industrial activity throughout the country. , UNFAIR DISTINCTION It is proposed to secure revenue by levying additional fees on building permits. Taking the average value of building operations for tho 30 years 1921-22 to 1930-31, the fees would pro- | duce in excess of £IO,OOO per annum. These taxes are to bo paid by one section only of the community, namely, those who build. This is an unfair distinction. Since the benefit of the whole community is intended, then the whole community should meet, through ' tho consolidated fund, any expenditure considered to be. necessary for tho purpose of ensuring safety in building construction. That principle applies also to any expenditure on research into building designs. There is, however, adds the statement, no real need to set up expensive maI chinery for research purposes, since ' the collection of information could be 1 done through existing departmental i machinery, while the expenditure of ; £IO,OOO per annum on administration , is an extravagance. Now by-laws are to be imposed from time to time at tho will of a per- ; manent committee, so that a building ! that is constructed to-day in accordance with tho by-laws may have to be altered later to conform to other bylaws that the committee may see fit to impose. A permanent, paid committee evolving by-laws is an unnecessary expense, and a mischievous deterrent to new building schemes. No consideration is extended to the property owner, in whose hands, after all, .it rests as to whether a building is erected at all, and who will have to meet the extra building costs that this bill will bring about. He is given no right of appeal, and no consideration as to his financial ability to alter, demolish, or remove pre-existing strue- j tures (as he can be compelled to do) sinco ho is being held responsible for any past structural weaknesses in con- j noetion with earthquake resistancedetails of which even experts to-day | have no proper knowledge. The effect ; of the system proposed by the Building Construction Bill will be to discourage capital from investment in mortar and steel, to ultimately reduce building activity, and to increase rents.