Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

CRITICS’ ATTACKS

STEVENS GOVERNMENT COSTUMES ON BEACH Sydney, December 3. Like the Federal Government over the Freer case, the New South Wales Government, which until a few months ago could do no wrong, is under fire on a number of fronts. It is suffering the attacks of “crusaders” in two other matters—the ban against the wearing of bathing “shorts” on beaches and the swallowing by the State Transport Department of certain privately- t owned motor-bus services. There is comedy in the beach shorts controversy, and trivial though the point in dispute may be, the Government will probably lose votes because of it. About a year ago, the Minister of Local Government, Mr Spooner, decreed that costumes must be of a certain length and design. The decree provided that the front of the body must be covered from the waist to the level of the armpits. Costumes in keeping with this design were modest, but by no means prudish, and the majority of bathers seemed satisfied. Campaign Against Regulations When the present surfing season started, two Sydney newspapers began a campaign against the Spooner regulation and in favour of extreme Continental fashions. One of the newspapers even unearthed a man who legally evaded the ban by appearing on Manly beach in shorts, shoes and socks, the point being that the use of footwear made him dressed for walking and not for swimming, and thus technically evaded the demands of the Spooner regulations. But most people seem to think that if the swimmers could guarantee the picturesqueness of their torsos there would be more reason for the campaign and less for the Spooner ban. Until all bathers can claim the physique of beach life-savers it seems better to insist on what the crusaders contemptuously call “chest-protectors.” The bus-services matter is more serious for the Government. When the Lang Government was in power it endeavoured to make the State tramways profitable by ridding them of the growing motor-bus competition by means of an exorbitant tax. The ruse succeeded and buses practically disappeared from Sydney and suburban streets. One of Mr Stevens’ policy promises was that private enterprise in transport services would not be interfered with. State Services Introduced It was a blow to bus operators when the Stevens Government, on assuming office, instituted State services on routes formerly used by private operators. A policy of absorbing feeder bus routes—those serving districts without direct State-owned transport—and an announcement this week that the Transport Board is to take over nine more of these privately-owned feeder routes, has brought the matter to a head. The Government’s excuse is that it is acting jn the interests of transport co-ordination. The bus operators base their objections chiefly on the facts

that the compensation paid is on a greatly inferior valuation of equipment, and that no allowance is made for goodwill. Most of these feeder services started in a small- way and have been built up to prosperous businesses. They have converted the outlying suburbs into new residential areas, and the Government is to reap the benefits of the bus-operators’ strenuous part over many years in giving transport facilities to these areas. Some Restive Supporters The most telling retort to the Government is that if it thought fit to sell the State brickworks and blue metal quarries to avoid competition with private enterprise—and the prices of these commodities have doubled since the sale—then it should not allow the State to swallow private enterprise in bus services. A group of the Government’s United Australia Party supporters has been restive under this aspect of policy, and steps are being taken by these members to launch a motion in the Legislative Assembly,in condemnation of the transport policy. They nave been warned by the Premier that such a move will be tantamount to a censure on the Government, but it is expected that the motion will receive considerable support from the Government side of the House. liJ/'

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ST19361216.2.138

Bibliographic details

Southland Times, Issue 23074, 16 December 1936, Page 16

Word Count
654

CRITICS’ ATTACKS Southland Times, Issue 23074, 16 December 1936, Page 16

CRITICS’ ATTACKS Southland Times, Issue 23074, 16 December 1936, Page 16

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert