The Sun 42 WYNDHAM STREET, AUCKLAND FRIDAY, AUGUST 23, 1929 LABOUR SAVES THE GOVERNMENT

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 749, 23 August 1929, Page 8

The Sun 42 WYNDHAM STREET, AUCKLAND FRIDAY, AUGUST 23, 1929 LABOUR SAVES THE GOVERNMENT

I ABOUR saved the United Government on a party test in the House of Representatives last evening and rendered first aid at its own political expense. The Socialist group, which is the left wing of the Opposition, fluttered over from its position and became the right wing of the Ward Administration. In order to accomplish that ludicrous transportation Labour had to surrender the most vital part of its distinctive policy. It had to accept the United Government’s proposals to increase the cost of living and add to the present grotesque burden of taxation, and to make raids on the highways fund and the savings of thrifty working people. The result, as was to be expected, was merely a further demonstration of the fact that the game of party politics is played with humbug as the ball. No one, of course, expected the Government to be defeated on the first no-eonfidenee issue, for whatever else the three parties in the House desire to do or to leave undone, none of them wants to incur the certain risk of losing their spruiking jobs in an emergency test of electoral opinion on weak but pretentious administration and exceptionally poor Parliamentary work. So far, Parliament has been two months in session, and its achievements could be adequately recorded on a grain of wheat. Still, the game must go on at great eost to the taxpayers, and will go on so long as simple people believe that promises are better than performances. In the circumstances of parties in the House last evening, the so-ealled political drama with the title, “United We Stand,” quickly was turned into a shallow farce. It might vex some very sensitive persons if one were to indicate the principal actors, but most observers will have no difficulty at all in recognising the party that was given the role of comedian. It is fair to say, however, that the part was played as well as could be expected in difficult and embarrassing circumstances, but there was and will be no applause. Labour, in plain words, was compelled to reveal the unpleasant truth that, like all other parties, it had to betray itself in regard to its highest principles in order to foil the tactics of its ancient enemy. And that, too, is politics. But, really, there is no reason either for sympathy with the Labour Party or for censure. It realised that a clever political trap had been set by the Opposition and, with open-eyed alertness, Labour ran into the United sanctuary. Politics, like misfortune, brings together strange bedfellows. Naturally, a somewhat different view of the position was taken by Mr. Holland, who made it clear that he and his party, having been forced to choose between what seemed to them two evils, chose the lesser. And thus they linked arms with politicians whom they do not love with the love of David for Jonathan, and who are determined hv their Budget proposals to make social and industrial life harder for workers. The outcome of Reform’s no-confidence challenge to the Government—its rejection by a two to one majority—may he hailed by many partisans as a great victory for the United Administration. In one way it may be so interpreted, for it will give the Government confidence to carry on for the full Parliamentary term without quaking terror of ignominious defeat, but actually the result of the test was a tactical triumph for the Opposition. Quite obviously Mr. Coates baited and barbed his amendment for a dual purpose, which was to discover where Labour and the agricultural Independents stood in relation to the Government’s taxation proposals. It is true that the Opposition Leader did not hook either, hut in searing them away, ,he at least discovered that Reform must fight alone, and look upon the United Party, the Labour Party and the odd Independents as brothers in adversity and defence. So, for the purpose of avoiding an early election there are virtually only two parties in the House. This may work out very well for the Government. It is wallowing in borrowed money, and if the huge sums be spent in ways pleasing to its allies, the United Party will stand. BOARD AND BRIDGE IF the Auckland Harbour Board is not exactly resisting the plan * for a harbour bridge, it is not showing wild enthusiasm about the proposal. The latest evidence of its passive attitude comes from an ex-chairman, Mr. H. R. Mackenzie, who states that the board is opposed to the expenditure upon the taking of borings until a site for the bridge has finally been agreed uj)on. Since it will hardly be possible to determine the possibilities of different sites until the character of the harbour bed at each place has been tested, this seems an inverted kind of argument. 1 et it must be admitted that, in submitting fhe proposals of the Bridge Association to the fullest possible scrutiny, Mr. Mackenzie and his fellow members of the board are only acting as the responsibilities of their office dictate. They have to study a future which is not merely ten years or a generation away, hut fifty, one hundred and still more years ahead. The possible development of Auckland in one hundred or two hundred years may surpass the expectations of even the most vivid imaginations today, and the Harbour Board has to consider carefully what directions this expansion may follow. The Waitemata Harbour is at present far different from Sydney Harbour, where an immense amount of shipping is concentrated in the upper reaehes. Here the extent of the shallows prevents the possibility of similar development unless very heavy expenditure is incurred in dredging. But there remains a considerable extent of deep water in the vicinity of Chelsea, Kauri Point, and further up the harbour. Quite large steamers working the Chelsea Wharf with sugar cargoes already ply in that part of the harbour. Therefore the possibility of development in this direction cannot he altogether ignored. Where the Harbour Board’s attitude seems illogical is that it will not countenance a bridge from Beaumont Street to the middle of Shoal Baj% hut will sanction one from virtually the same point on the City side to Stokes Point, Northcote, on the North Shore side. If the suggested sites for the bridge may hinder maritime development up the harbour, the one will he as bad as the other. The difference in the restriction imposed along the present commerical waterfront will he practicallv negligible, as the bridge in each proposed site springs from the same point on the City side. Unless the Harbour Board has some elaborate, but hitherto undisclosed, plans for the shallows of Shoal Bay, it would seem to be putting up a somewhat unreasoning opposition, and while the public will endorse the hoard’s anxiety to guard maritime interests to the fullest extent possible, it will naturally desire it to present logical arguments.’ If the board had said it would agree to no plan other than a high-level bridge between Point Erin and Stokes Point, its professions would sound much more convincing.