HIDING THE SURPLUS.

Shannon News, 1 August 1924, Page 3

HIDING THE SURPLUS.

LONDON KNOWS MORE THAN NEW 7 ZEALAND, '■■■••■ HIGHER INTEREST RATES. WELLINGTON, Last Night. The reluctance of Mr Massey to announce a surplus was attacked ■\ by Mr T. K. Sid ey, who resumed the financial debate in the House to-day. Mr Sidey said that for some reason or another, the Prime Minister this year seemed reluctant to announce his surplus. It had been a general practice in the past for Ministers of Finance to make a public statement as to the financial position before waiting for the publication of the accounts in the "Gazette." He had gone back to 1919, in which - year the then acting Minister made such a statement and he found thai, the only years in which >no such indication had- been given as to the position at the close of - the financial * year were the years 1920 and 1924. It might have been only a coincidence that these two years were years of railway strikes, but it was more charitable to suggest that the Minister was pre-occupied in the former year with the Prince's visit and in the latter with the visit of the Fleet, but even London was given more information than New Zealand this year, for in the beginning of May, London was informed in the loan prospectus that' the surplus for the year was over one and a half millions. The surplus was-really- greater than that shown, because of an outstanding asset of £540,000. From this I should reasonably be deducted an in- | crease in outstanding liabilities amounting to £123,000, but the addition of £417,000 brought the surplus up to not far short of two and a quarter millions. Perhaps the Prime Minister's ' reluctance to announce this surplus was due to his consciousness that it was too big and that he was taking too much money out of the pockets of the people.

On the subject of the 1924 loan, Mr Sidey said the country was never able to obtain precise information as to the actual cost, and consequently the actual rate of interest on its borrowings in London, until about two years had elapsed. In referring to the last loan, the Budget stated that the interest yield to investors was £4 14/9. That statement did not close as much information as could and should have been given. The London "Times" in referring to this loan, said that the running yield was £4 14/9 and that the total average yiGld allowing for the bonus payable on redemption, was £4 18/1. When brokerage, advertising and otheu charges and expenses were added and when the cost of administration by the Advances Office was taken into account, it was clear that this money could not be lent out by that department at 43k per cent, and might not even be profitably employed at 5J per cent. He supposed it was intended that this money would replace the money available at a lower rate and no doubt the loan from the accumulated surpluses to the Advances Office of over £2,000,000 was so employed, as it was available for lending at the lowest rates.