The New Zealand Times. MONDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 1913. A NOTABLE INTERVIEW

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVII, Issue 8350, 10 February 1913, Page 6

The New Zealand Times. MONDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 1913. A NOTABLE INTERVIEW

The cable has chronicled the fact that the Finance Minister of this Dominion has had a long interview with a representative of the “Financial News” on “the economic conditions of New Zealand.” Another statement of the same message is that the “News" “estimated that 120 millions of colonial loans must be renewed or paid before the middle of 1913.” Now, if the sub* stance of the interview had been cabled as published in the “News,” there might have been a satisfactory completeness about the message as a whole. As there is nothing whatever about the interview, except that it was ao* corded to a newspaper which is insisting on something not very unlike a disparaging 'criticism of the colonial position, there is room for considerable regret. One thing does seem likely. It is that the representative of the newspaper estimating this vast number of colonially-owned millions may have reminded the Dominion Finance Minister that the countries with the best management and the most secure laws would have the best chance of success, would get their money at a fair price—the price going in the market—whereas the countries whoso governments bad been accused of driving capital away, of living on borrowed money almost exclusively, of corruption and Tammanyism, would in all probability stand a poor chance. As also indeed those whose published statistics were unreliable. It is not an extravagant supposition that, after such exordium about securities described in the jargon of the market as gilt-edged and securities not so described, the estimating authority reminded the Minister that it would bo necessary to show that his country belonged to the former rather than to the latter of these categories. Hence, possibly, the interview about the economio conditions.” It may be suggested that this is doubtful, because the High Commissioner had published on the previous day a reasoned account of the prudent manner in which the loans of the Dominion are invested. That is well so far as it goes. _ But it only satisfies the people of this country who understand how completely the quotation disproves the ancient reckless, unprincipled criticisms of the party now in power. Hut the financial News” is not “the party now in power,” and naturally will want to know things. Naturally it will seek the information from Mr Allen in a conversation on the economic condition of New Zealand. As a surmise, we leave it at that. Wo can easily imagine Mr Allen entering the editorial sanctum like a client entering his banker’s office for the purpose of a favour of the order not unusual among the clients of banks—not with the assured manner that suits a platform of sympathisers. Rather with a deeper gloom than the fierce expression which accompanies the jeremiads this authority is accustomed to deliver in his place in Parliament. The simile is apt because the critic would be likely to refer to some of these very efforts of oratory, and some of those equally reckless in which his colleagues nave from time to time indulged during the sittings of the House of Representatives. Take those, for example, for which the _ head of Mr Allen’s Government . is responsible. There was a memorable debate in 1910, in the course of which both these Ministers supported their abuse of their_ opponents who were then in power in a manner which hit the country by a process analogous to the “ cannon ” familiar to billiard-players. In that speech" Mr Massey refused credence to the statement of the Minister that his Government had in a stated period saved over £300,000. Mr Massey could not find in the public accounts anything more than £98,000 of saving by way . of retrenchment. Sir Joseph Ward replied by claiming that he had quoted the document prepared by the officers of the various departments which showed a saving of £344,203, and ha read the document giving the names of the departments which had saved and the amount of the saving of each. Sir Joseph laid stress on the fact that the document had been prepared by the officers, and he urged that ho preferred the accounts of the officers to Mr Massey’s guesses. Mr Allen followed, and utterly refused to believe, making tremendous reference to the accounts. It would be a natural question of the “News” critic to ask: “Mr Allen, you and your chief have sot aside the accounts prepared by the ordinary officers of the departments whose duty it is to prepare the accounts for the year. I gather from your line of action that the statistics of your country are unreliable. Kindly explain how I can accept the account of the prudent expenditure of loan moneys quoted by Mr Mackenzie? Especially, when I see that your chief in the same speech (July 26th, 1910) threw some doubts upon a statement of this nature in the Budget of Sir Joseph Ward then under discussion.” What reply Mr _ Allen would make to a question like this oonfronting him with his chief’s doubts on the official figures supplied to Ministers of the Crown is a mvsterv which we must leave to the “ thinking ” powers of Mr Massey. The question in the month of a hostile financial critic in Dondon at the present time;—in presence of those countless securities seeking renewal or payment before the middle of 1913—simply cuts the ground of stable official basis from under the feet of the Dominion. Of what use to offer documentary evidence as proof to strangers when the validity of such proof has been denied by members of our own household ? The leader of the late Opposition and his financial lieutenant are now at liberty to reflect on the feelings of the man who sowed tho wind and reaped the—inevitable. Perhaps it is fortunate for tho Minister of Finance that Sir Joseph Ward is in London at the present moment.^ But, putting aside all questions of £ha published -flames and their authea-

ticity, there is much more in that very debate for a man in the position of the Minister of Finance, on tho chair of suffering in the bank chamber, to answer. Imagine the cross-examiner so pitiless: “Your Mr Massey said that there was no land to give to the desirable moneyed class of settler who might he attracted to the country, and none for the saving industrious man working his destiny out in the Dominion. Ho has not mended tho matter in that respect, and will you explain how ho will ever be able to do it with his policy. Let mo suggest that one of the reasons adduced in justification of borrowing is the vast power of keeping population, which has hardly been touched .by tho million who have been already so easily absorbed. But if there is no land, and you cannot find any? Again. Mr Massey said: ‘Last session we piled up the taxation of this country to an enormous extent.' Kindly explain how that affects ‘the shoulders of the people’ _ to whom Mr Massey referred dramatically on that occasion ? You aro asking us to add to tho burden, you know. Mr Massey referred to the return of prosperity, the buoyancy of the finances and the increase of the revenue, and inforentially denied the reality of these things referred to in tho Financial Statement of tho same year, and his proof was that there was no proposal to reduce taxes. I observe that tho same things are being advanced in connection with this loan. Aro they any truer now? I do not observe any attempt on your part to reduce taxes, either. Mr Massey went on to say that tho onlyjpolicy of tho Government was a policy of borrowing as much as possible and for every possible purpose. And here you aro with a tidy loan and asking for a heap of renewals of this ‘as much as possible for every possible purpose’ policy—a policy I may add the same critic later and _in another place characterised as raising millions to buy support. Mr Massey justified tho statement of the president of a certain bank, the Government bank, who said that money was difficult of investment, and Mr Allen sustained him, the latter adding that the death duties and other legislation—your friends the ‘Seven Devils’ I presume —had undoubtedly disqouraged the entry of outside capital and frightened away some local capital and also prevented investment of the balance in fostering industries. He said too that there was a feeling of want of confidence in the community, and that tho spirit of enterprise was waning. Ho showed a table of his own construction which exhibited the leaps and bounds by which expenditure had gone up since the beginning of the century—■ up to the awful aggregate of three and a half millions—and there was not a word in the whole array of figures of any increases of the revenue, and later on. only sufficient to suggest that every pound of increased revenue was covered by wasteful extravagant expenditure. I may remind you that your estimates are the same as those of your predecessors. What do you propose to answer? You even declare that the expenditure on railways was extravagant—a cost going up without rhyme or reason by thousands of pounds per mile. And against your estimate are those of your predecessors. You yourself, moreover, Mr Allen, on that fateful July 26th talked of the difficulties in paying the interest. Difficulties of paying the interest, Mr Allen? Do you realise, in face of such a statement, that you are asking for a loan?” But why go on? We will only repeat that it is well for Mr Allen and tho loan, and renewal prospects that Sir Joseph Ward is in London. He has often confuted these criticisms, and ho will easily do so again to tho satisfaction of unbiassed good sense. Our advice, when it is all over, to Mr Allen and his friends will be to seek for their political capital anywhere except in the finances of the Dominion.