The Sun 42 Wyndham Street, Auckland, N.Z. TUESDAY, JUNE 7, 1927. “HOW THE BANKS CAME THROUGH!“

Sun (Auckland), Volume 1, Issue 64, 7 June 1927, Page 8

The Sun 42 Wyndham Street, Auckland, N.Z. TUESDAY, JUNE 7, 1927. “HOW THE BANKS CAME THROUGH!“

WHEN a leading bank in England held its annual meeting a few months ago, the shareholders were informed by their chairman that the business of banking had experienced one of the worst trade and financial years in the nation’s history. The information was received with becoming' gravity. Everybody who heard it realised that a great crisis had been experienced. But when it was announced toward the end of a brilliant speech that the directors of the bank recommended the payment of a dividend at the rate of 16 2-3 per cent, the solemn shareholders burst into British cheers. It is surprising that a financial poet has not yet written an ode: “How the Banks Came Through!” It may be assumed' that shareholders in the Bank of New Zealand will have been a little less exuberant in their rejoicing to-day over the bank’s results last financial year. These, relatively, were somewhat disappointing: the pitch of profit fell short of the record altitude. As in the experience of merchants, traders, farmers, industrialists and everyone else, this was to be anticipated. It is true that the gross profits nearly reached the two million pounds mark; but after discharging such extravagances as,taxation, directors’ remuneration, and so on the pi-ofits shrank to the modest sum of £847,670, representing a sad decline to the extent of £64,490. Still, all things considered, there is no cause for vexation. The bank managed to pay a dividend of 14 1-3 per cent, on the ordinary or privately-held shares and 12 2-5 per cent, on the Government’s B shares. Thus has it been proved again that the choicest flowers are often plucked from the thorniest stems. Though many of the bank’s harassed customers may be tempted to look sourly at a balance sheet which bulges with prosperity, they may find some consolation in the fact that the State, as theoretically representing all the people, has done exceptionally well in partnership with the ordinary shareholders in a great financial institution. Indeed, the Government has taken the chief brigand’s share of the loot. It has collected about half a million in dividend, bonus, debenture stock interest and taxation on a high scale. Let it be hoped that the money will be spent to the best advantage and not merely squandered. Until that hope has been realised, public appreciation of tall banking profits will not take the form of perfect praise. So far, it cannot be pretended that the Government’s partnership in the Bank of New Zealand has made the business of banking any easier or any better for the commercial public. The experiment was established as an object lesson in a sharesystem as the next best thing to a State bank. All the things the Government vowed not to do are the things which it has done. Instead of making the bank less conservative, the State has gone the full journey with it in search of big profits and great possessions. And so, to-day, the directors and shareholders of the quasi-State bank beam with satisfaction as they resolve, in partnership with the friendly Government, to maintain/the traditional policy of hard-hearted business, exorbitant charges, and high profits. Bad times may come and bad times may go, but the the big dividends of the banks go on for ever.

THE SLUMS OF AUCKLAND

IT is to be hoped that the Minister of Labour, Mr. G. J. Anderson, has been duly impressed by what he saw of the slums of Auckland yesterday. He is said to have “reserved comment until Parliament meets.” May it be taken that he was so overwhelmed with indignation at actually seeing how some people are compelled to live, under conditions for which his Government is largely responsible, that he could not trust himself, without due reflection, to express his opinions in temperate language? Mr. Anderson saw utilised as human habitations, shacks that few farmers would use for the housing of their cattle. He saw, in side lanes, where building for residence would not now be permitted, dwellings erected over half a century ago and now falling into decay—mere boxes divided into three or four tiny compartments. “The Minister took a brief look at the inside of one ‘cottage,’ but did not linger any longer than was necessary.” He wouldn’t. No one would linger in such an environment excepting under compulsion. It may be believed that only a very grim necessity compels people to live in such places, week after week, year in and year out. Very bravely they make a virtue of necessity—and pay rents of from 20s to 30s a week for the privilege of being part and parcel of slumdom. Members of Parliament accompanying the Minister on his tour of inspection informed Mr. Anderson that slumdom was unavoidable for many families with an income of between £3 and £4 a week. The obvious answer is that if there were no slums there would be no slumdom. It is said that if these insanitary, unhealthy, soul-depressing shacks were pulled down, there would be no other places for the unfortunate people inhabiting' them to dwell in. It is somebody’s job to find, or build, other, and better, dwellings. Did not the Minister in charge of housing inform Parliament two years ago, that he confidently anticipated overtaking the housing shortage in a very short time? It is nearly ten years since a dreadful epidemic swept the land, and Auckland’s slum conditions were exposed to an outraged community. Then it was declared that such a state of affairs was “a blot upon the fair face of the city” and must be forever removed. But the epidemic passed, the scare died down, and the only treatment accoi-ded the “blot upon the failface of the city” was a metaphorical pat with the powder-puff. There can be no minimising the evil, and the people of Auckland will await with interest the meeting of Parliament to learn what Mr. Anderson will have to say about it—and what he will propose to do about it.