The New Zealand Times. MONDAY, JANUARY 27, 1913. THE BARRENNESS OF “REFORM.”

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVII, Issue 8339, 27 January 1913, Page 6

The New Zealand Times. MONDAY, JANUARY 27, 1913. THE BARRENNESS OF “ REFORM.”

Kvory day adds to the evidence of the bankruptcy of ideas which is the chief equipment of “ Reform ” for office. The fact iistonishcs no ono accustomed to the tactics of that party as practised for the x>ast twenty years. Nevertheless, the progress of the demonstration given in the fullness of official opportunity by the party which always sheltered the banality of its opposition under tho rule that Oppositions are not expected to do anything but oppose is ; surprising. Who, for example, would ever have suspected Mr Massey of professing a delight in optimism? But this is exactly what ho did the other day in one of tho series of banquet speeches now running itself out so merrily. He had been struck with the optimism of tho people 1 If that means that .Mr Massey has condescended at last to join a state of mind which is at least as old as tho late Liberal regime, it reflects credit on his acceptance of clear evidence. Sir Joseph Ward, moreover, was an optimist, and this new departure of Mr Massey’s is tho sinoerest flattery, for which wo cannot help feeling thankful. But, of course, tho first stop forward after the change is a blunder. Otherwise “Reform” would be something else than itself. The blunder touches tho causes of tho prosperity, which is tho mainspring of the general optimism which Mr Massey has at last found irresistible. He tlimits the cause of the prosperity is “security of tenure,” and ho is going to devote himself to security of tenure. Now, security of tenure in Mr Massey’s eyes consists in enabling men to get the public mineral riches under their feet for a more song, as a recent case has proved, and many other cases are getting ready to prove, under the stimulus of the Massey circulars urging tenants not to miss the golden opportunity. But there was security of tenure before the arrival of this tremendous Agamemnon of the freehold, for every intending settler had tho option of the freehold at the outset, and every leaseholder had ample security on the most elementary conditions of reasonableness, some of them even to a limit, of almost 1000 years. Why did “security” not have the wonderful effect then that it is having now ? Clearly because the right has been added of robbing the State by getting the minerals for nothing which the Liberal regime insisted on getting adequate value for? There is nothing else different—therefore, there is no other cause. Of course, this sort of thing is vouched for by, the usual Tory shadow—so greatly “'respected ” in the Dominion and well acquainted with all the inmost thoughts of the moneychangers and other hucksters of the world. We did not believe this gifted mortal when he prophesied the death of everything under the dominion of his familiar spirits, “ the Seven Devils of Socialism.” Neither can wo believe bim now merely because Mr Massey has crossed the floor of the House and is trying to conceal his lack of originality, Wo prefer the records of tho money market which prove the supremacy of our credit in a way sufficient for the most exacting. We prefer the evidence of tho surpluses which even tho determined efforts of “Reform” have failed to diminish. We prefer tho evidence of the Savings Banks, which “ Reform ” robbed of a petty percentage in order to show its superiority in “ The High Finance.” Wo prefer tho evidence of Mr Massey himself. who is engaged in telling packed audiences the wonders of the position which blinded all eyes long before ho condescended to see them. We prefer the evidence of the general optimism which Mr Massey himself has joined after nearly a quarter of a century of a state of mind which it would be flattery to describe as “ philosophic doubt.” AR these things prove the phantom character of tho authority quoted by Mr Massey. But for all that we cannot help thanking the “Reform ” leader for extending by this optimism his sincerest l regard for the policy of his predecessor, Sir Joseph Ward, so consistently derided by the rank, file, and officers of “Reform.” Tho one redeeming feature of this latest and most characteristic outburst of “Reform” is tho inability of the leader to trust entirely to this “security of tenure.” Ho will have roads, “railway facilities,” “schools for children,” telephones and other things. Tho enumeration of the list brings us echoes trooping of tho services of Sir Joseph Ward and Iris predecessors. What did they not do for roads—the vote for which they took up to over half a million for the first time; for railways—with a policy denounced generally as too extravagant for words by “Reform” and abetted in particular by “Reform” demands aggregating ten times tho prudential limit set by the Government of tho day; for telephones—which they reduced to the acme of known cheapness and extended beyond the dream of extravagant hope throughout the country districts; for schools—with a policy of scholarships and technical schools which it takes a man some hours to master the outline of. It is a credit to Mr Massey that ho has elected to go on with these things in spite of the abuse to which he subjected the men who did them. But it would hare been more to his good name if ho had not treated them as discoveries of his own. _ Prudence and confidence in the public are perhaps the chief points in_ tho claim for this preference of tho British oublic for “Reform” administration, which is not endorsed by tho usual statistical publications. At all events, Mr Massey leads us in that last effort of rhetoric to imagine so, with him. Even here, however, we must regret, being unable to dispense with the credentials of all messengers of good tidings. His friends boast of the frankness of the financial attitude which discloses expenditure as well as revenue. But the only reliable disclosure is at tho end of the financial year when the accounts are all closed and that disclosure Sir Joseph Ward always made. Indeed, be was the fitst to make, it. All the Treasurers his, predecessors, especially those

of the Conservative days, regarded the balance of the bookkeeping as the con of “high finance,” but Sir Joseph treated it as a detail of which the, public should have the earliest knowledge possible. Mr Massey throws dust by claiming a “saving” on one quarter’; returns. Prudence in borrowing Mi Massey insists on. But Sir Joseph and his Liberal predecessors introduced the system of borrowing which uses the credit of the State without asking tin State exchequer to pay a fractional part of tlio interest. That is a long way ahead of anyone else on the prudential road. Sir Joseph was fiercely abused as extravagant in borrowing, hut “Reformers” know how fiercely he resisted their attempts to make him ten times as extravagant as they declared him to lie. Moreover, ho was the first to insist on establishing the repayment of the public debt on a stable footing, and they distinguished themselves bv the jiersistent shallowness of their belittling of his great idea. This great prudential step did more for the credit of New Zealand than all the quidnuncs who fled from the country before the face of the Liberal regime to enjoy good society and good cookery in London plus the malicious pleasure of plying with criticism unfounded the country which supplied them with the. luxuries of life, have been able to do against it. “By their friends shall you know them”—and these bo the friends of “Reform.” As for the spirit of frankness we only ask, if anv doubt remains about the total breakdown of that claim, ono thing. Let the world realise how much it knows of the naval policy of the Government, which frankly refuses to say a word, while the Governments of ail the other countries interested are exhausting language in support of their ideas.