PREMIER’S REPLY

Hokitika Guardian, 6 May 1930, Page 8

PREMIER’S REPLY

TO MR DOWNIE STEWART

i iiv Telegraph--Press Association)

WELLINGTON, May 3

The Right Hon. the Prime Ministe Sir Joseph Ward, has telephonec the following statement from Roto rua to-day.

JVith reference to the reported re marks made at Auckland by the Hon. Mr Downie Stewart regard ing the' deficiency in the Public Ac counts for the financial year 1928

1 O being the last year of the occe pation of the Treasury Benches b.' the Reform Party. I wish to point out that in the introductory portioi of my 1929 Budget and also in m; London statement, I clearly point ml out that the special expenditure ' r ' l .y.OOO connected with the loai conversion operations during tlia' year had helped to swell the defin ciency. However, even without thi £15(5,000 referred to the deficit wool/ have befin £421,252. The Hon. M Stewart points out, .that he had n opportunity to reduce, expenditure i; he last four months of the year, a he would have done if it had beer bvious that the revenue was fall big. My answer to this statement Is : Firstly, the people of the Domin ion were apparently good judges cl 'bo march of events, and they di hied that it was time to make

I change. Secondly with regard to tlr last four months of the yea-, wher 'he ,of the country were m ■ der my control, I explained in fch 1929 Budget the steps which I too 1 to keep the expenditure down as much as possible, after # ascertaining V actual position, and taking eogn Banco of the commitments alrend entered into by the Reform Govern qient. Here let me point out that ihis financial statement, which he laic' on the table of the House prior t' > a eating the Treasury Benches, th Hon. Mr Downie Stewart stated thal 'here were at that date no indication: that the estimate of a balanced Bud get', made earlier in the year, woulc not be realised. As a matter of I'act, the • Customs receipts, as shown in the Hon. Mr Stewart’s final statement before vacating office, were 9509,000 short of the proportionate oart of his estimate for the year. There was the genesis of the deficit for the year; and it is ridiculous to now suggest that it would not have occurred if the Reform Government ■ l -"mained in office. As I pointout in the Budget, this Government took prompt steps to retrieve the position as far as possible; but tbexpenditure was tied by the compliments of the Reform Government and the year’s operations were too far gone for this Government to achieve success in that endeavour. “Further T notice that the . ex- . Minister of Finance, in commenting upon the loan of l £5,500,000 which had just -been underwritten suggests that the Government has not been able to borrow all of the money that .it requires. As I have already stated this is quite incorrect, and just so much nonsense. Economically, it would be a bad policy to borrow the whole of our loan requirements ibroad. The Government’s proposals for the current year will be brought Imvn in the House at. the proper ‘iinp, and I do not propose to discuss 1 ''' in now. T may say, however, that the amount underwritten in London together with the local resources wil'j nrovide all the additional capital required for the carrying out the Government's policy in connection with, State Advances. Rubik Works and 'and settlement. Needless to say, he Government is not going to be 'impeded into adding any more t” the puWV, debt. That is essential. To sum it all up, the statements made by the Hon Mr Downie Stewart consist of little more than a reiteration of matters which wore fully v "Missed and explained in Parliament last session, and if threshing “the J d«ad horse” is all the -contribution 'hit the Reform Party can make towards the solution of the current ffimncinl problem, it is a fortunate thing for the country that they are no longer upon the treasury Benches.” ' |