The Guardian (And Evening Star, with which is in corporated the West Coast Times.) FRIDAY, JANUARY 13th, 1924. TWO POLITICAL POINTS.

Hokitika Guardian, 18 January 1924, Page 2

The Guardian (And Evening Star, with which is in corporated the West Coast Times.) FRIDAY, JANUARY 13th, 1924. TWO POLITICAL POINTS.

I In a speech deliver'd at Lithgow roeentI ly, the Federal Treasurer and actingI i’rime .Minister of the. Commonwealth, I Dr. Karle Page, raised two points oi 1 first -floss political importance, hath ot ( which have in noli to commend, indeed; I it may he said that they are both I very desirable. Dr. Earle Page staled l that the Commonwealth finances would 1 snow a surplus for the current year [ "hich ends on June JOtli., hut that ( t’.e sttr]>lus would lie applied to tho i reduction of debt. This is the correct i and only method of dealing with a sur--1 plus as it will he the endeavour to 1 show. It is an axiom that the Govorn- , men! of a country should extract from , the people only so much money as is necessary to carry on the Government 1 of the country with economy. There i should he no parsimony in this, while at the same time theie should he no extravagance. When the Treasury figures show a. surplus: or a deficit it. is an indication of faulty estimating, but at the same time it must ho admitted that in human a Hairs mistakes will lie made. Sometimes a surplus or a deficit may he the result of a genuine mistake, but generally they are the result of faulty, or incompetent estimating. New Zealand has become accustomed to comparatively large surpluses each year. Tu fact it was only during the slump of 1920-21 that, there wan a deficit. Tho New Zealand annual surplus is easily produced, for the Treasury has merely to under estimate the revenue and over-estimate the expenditure to secure a surplus. This is no credit, to the Treasury or the Finance Minister. On the contrary it is a reflection on their capabilities. Bearing in mind that the Government has no right to take from the pockets of the taxpayer more than is needed for the just and economic administration of the country’s affairs, the surplus may be classed as political profiteering. Of course folk will he assured by tho Government and the Treasury that the surpluses are generally applied to public works, and transfers of huge sums extending over many years can he pointed to in support, of the Treasury’s , contention. Nevertheless the surplus of each year is nothing short- of political profiteering, or political pilfering from the people. The Government has no right to use revenue for capital expenditure. and there are two very strong objections against the practice. Raising .money in the eapyj imetiiod of making a surplus, enables the Government of the day to spend this easy money in a vicious way often upon works that are political in their character. In short, it is a way of buying political support. Does i£ not stand to reason that the amount forming the surplus would he bettor left in the pockets cf the people who would invest the money to better advantage than the Government can possibly do? If £20.000000 be sufficient to cover the cost of Government, whv co!l6ct £21,000,000 from the people? What justification is there for such a procedure beyond politic#] Jobbery? But this system of

producing surpluses by under-estimat-ing revenue and over-estimating expenditure, has long been in use and the only way to throw it out of gear is ’o adopt the Federal Treasurer’s scheme of applying the surplus to the reduction of debt. the people would knmt then the money was used wisely .■ml for the benefit of the country. It would, however, kill all incentive for creating a surplus. If the Government and the Treasury have no control over the surplus, that is tn say if they cannot spend it as they choose, they will ccivK to got a surplus, and tb» intimates will he framed on a basis of accuracy. This is a question well worth the while of the taxpayers and the electors generally to consider, and finally to move for its adoption. The other matter suggested by Dr. Earle Page is that the time had arrived in the Commonwealth to consider the desirability of transferring the management and control of public utilities fiom the Government to private enterprise. Both the Commonwealth and the Federal States have not been conspicuously successful iu their handling o'" public utilities. The Commonwealth Shipping Line has been a costly venti re. It made profits in a year when liny old tub that could sail the seas could make money, hut when put to iho real test it has proved a. losing game. Queensland supplies many instances of the inability and incompetence of the State to deal with public utilities, and New South \\ ales had recently to write off large slims and close down many of its trading ventiiios. New Zealand is no exception to tin rule and many of our State enterprises are losing concerns. It was shown quite recently that the New Zealand railways were lnsing over £2200 per day -which the taxpayers had to find, li would, of course, he regarded as rank heresy to suggest that the railways and the hydro-electiic ventures should he placed under private control - that is that they should he sold I* joint stock companies. A t all events p! Utica] control involves inefficiency and incompetence and too niton political jobbery and corruption.