PLAYING A DOUBLE PART.

Hawke's Bay Herald-Tribune, Issue 105, 20 May 1937, Page 4

PLAYING A DOUBLE PART.

When reading from time to time cabled reports of Loiilon press comment, whether adverse or favourable, on the Dominion 's national finance under a Labour Government those taking an intelligent interest in such matters cannot but have wondered upon what data the criticisms were based. If they were provided with as little authentic information as the people most concerned, then they can have had but, little upon wbich to go. Although before tbe last general election Labour leaders made great play with national finance as lying at the foot of practically all their schemes, now that they are in office there ti nothing with regard to which they maintain as profound a secrecy — that is, at any rate, so far as the people of this country are concerned. It wajs, of course, na.turally ejcpected that/ with a Gdvernment boasting of frankness and candour, the Minister of Finance would in laying his first Budget before Parliament have disclosed how he proposed to put into effect the new plans of finance of which we had heard so much. As a matter of fact, he did nothing of the kind. The net purport of his proposals was to collect an extra £4^-million in taxation and to borrow — from what source not mentioned — another £6-million for pnblic works. As to the housing scheme all he had to say was that £8-million— afterwards increased to £5-million— would be "provided/ * but a« to how or whence there was no word. It was much the same with xespect to the financing of the "guaranteed price" for dairy produce, which was to be paid "by means of a cheque drawn on the Dairy Industry Account at the Resetrve Bank," but as to the terms of this advance again no word, Thus, so far as we out here -are concerned, nearly everything concerning national finance has been left to surmise, a most unhealthy condition of affairs with respect to so important a factor in the country 's economic life. However, yesterday we had a message which purported to give in brief what Mr. Nash had to tell one of London's Ieading financial journals and, though it throws but little light on what we want and are entitled to know here, there in it some items of distinct interest. In the first pla.ce, he "denied that the Government contemplated nationalising the trading banks" — a statement that -will no doubt disappoint many of the Labour Party's adherents. He seems, however, to have omitted to njention that the Government has held out scarcely veiled threats to the trading banks that, unless they come to heel, measures will be taken to make them, and tjiat power to this end has been vested in tiie Government by its rceent legislation. Nor did it occur to him to mention that doubts as to how far the Government may carry its avowed nationalising policy has very definitely checked the lending activities of the banks that have so much to do with the promotion of the trade and industry on which productive employment so greatly depends.

Then Mr. .Nash goes on to say that "the Government has no plans for extending their marketing schemes," which, of course, is a direct negation of the policy outlined at election time and is contrary, indeed, to whai is going on at this very present time. Then follows a statement that there is "no prospect of inflation." Does this mean that Mr. Nash does not consider the issue of some nine or ten million of credit from the Reserve Bank, on which are rumoured to be altogether artificial terms, does not constitute "inflation"? He is not perhaps aware that some oi his parliamentary colleagues here are going about the country boasting of this as "new money," which to the ordinary ear sounds very much like a popular synomym for uifl&tion. Nor, by the way, do these same colleagues seem to realise that the issue of this "new money" and the almost inevitable prospect of more to.come are driving the sound "old money" out of the industrial and commer_cial investment market and so again blocking the fresh avenues of employment that otherwise might be ^jpened up. Mr. Nash also tells the "Financial News" that "half the expenditure on public works has beeir met by 'savings.' ' 1 Now what does he mean by tbat? It can scarcely be thought that he would have the hardihood to suggest that it comes from any "savings" made by a Government that is making itself notorious as about the most extravagant spender we have ever had. So, what does he inean? So far we have had no comment from the journal thus favoured by our Finance Minister/ but, should we get any, there will be no great difficulty in assessing • the value of criticism based on the information given. Mr. Nash evidently finds himself m a rather difficult position. Among his more immediate followers out here, looking to him for miracles, he may wish to maintain a reputation as something of a financial wizard. In the Old Country lie wants to pose as an entirely orthodox financier. In* short, he is playihg the game of a • financial "Mr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde/' which he will not find it easy to carry througli.