The Sun 42 WYNDHAM STREET. AUCKLAND TUESDAY, APRIL 29, 1930 SOCRATES AND A SURPLUS

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 958, 29 April 1930, Page 8

The Sun 42 WYNDHAM STREET. AUCKLAND TUESDAY, APRIL 29, 1930 SOCRATES AND A SURPLUS

ALTHOUGH far apart in time and appositeness, Socrates, the Cl Grecian sage, and Sir Joseph Ward’s surplus of £.150,000 on an inflated revenue of over £.25,000,000 appear to he the outstanding figures in the Parnell by-election campaign. The philosophy of the famous Greek attracted the thoughtful attention of Mr. Bloodworth, the Labour candidate, at Epsom last wlule ’ 111 another part of the electorate, the wonder of the Government’s financial success filled the mind of Mr. Donald the contestant for the United Party. It was made clear by Mr. Bloodworth that Parnell had no chance at all of being represented by a Socrates. Indeed, if the ancient philosopher were to return to this sphere and seek to this by-election (mused the Labour candidate), all sorts ot difficulties would beset him. To begin with, he would have to acquire the eligibility of a British subject and even after clearing 1 * a t hurdle he might not gain the favour of any party because °„ ls . me as an agitator against monopoly and the appointment of stiipid men to public offices. Apparently, the world and its politics, however democratic, have not changed much in 2,300 years. Advanced civilisation merely has succeeded in eliminat\ng the cup of hemlock as a. quick method of suppressing philosophers. There have been occasions in modern times when hemlock would have been! welcomed as the best way to silence politicians. The electors of Parnell, however, may now feel cei tain that there is not a Socrates in search of their suffrage. Possibly they never have had any doubt of it. In any case they must be content with candidates whose claim to the possession of impressive political wisdom has not yet been proved with convincing evidence.

And so interest turns toward the surplus and the party pride associated with it. “Cry as they will,” cried Mr. Donald, “the critics of the Government could not wipe out that surplus.” Of course not, and nobody wants to wipe it out. If it were wiped out the statement of national accounts for the past financial year would be a moekery of statesmanship, and merely a remarkable record of administrative profligacy. The surplus is the only redeeming feature of the depressing document. But Mr. Donald should tell the Parnell electors that if the estimates had been exact the surplus which cajinot be wiped out would not have existed at all, but would have given place to a deficit of £30,000. I t was neither efficient administration nor a masterly handling of finance that provided a surplus. The appreciable gain was the product of a buoyant Customs revenue plus the imposition of increased taxation in open defiance of the Government’s pledge to reduce the irksome burden of all sorts of taxes on a too tolerant people. And those representatives of the Labour Party who are coming to Parnell, “terrible as an army with banners,” with determination to wrest a stronghold from the enemy, should explain to the electors that it. was Labour’s alliance with the Government for the purpose of imposing an additional levy through the Customs on people with small incomes which helped to yield a surplus. If the Parnell electorate cannot be given Socratic wisdom let it at least have the plain truth of politics and the financial work of the United Government. And the plainest truth of all is nothing more nor less than the stark fact that Sir Joseph Ward’s surplus of £150,000 was the costliest boon ever conferred on a hypnotised country. It cost an extra and a severely-exacted revenue of two and a-quarter millions sterling at a time when industry, trade and competitive business, to say nothing about overburdened individual taxpayers, had to strain and scrape for incomes. Moreover, while prudent men were curtailing expenditure and squaring their budgets in the right, old-fashioned way, the Government broke its promise to effect a similar curtailment. It deliberately increased the State’s expenditure by £1,522,000. And it spent £1,412,500 on the relief of unemployment without fulfilling its boast as to the banishment of that evil. The money was spent in squandering ways. But the worst feature of all is the lack of any hint even at what the Government proposes to do this year in more difficult circumstances to square the national accounts. Five minutes after midnight on March 31 every year the British Government’s accounts are broadcast. Less than five weeks later the new Budget is introduced and passed, so that the nation knows without delay the best and the worst. Here, with a relatively paltry Budget, the Government is unable to give an inkling of its policy until July or even later. It is not a Socrates New Zealand needs.

A PREPOSTEROUS SUCCESS

IN granting reduction* of power supply rates amounting in this instance to £30,700, the Auckland Power Board speaks of the reductions as “concessions,” as if it had a right to withhold them if it so desired. The fact is that the board’s position has for some time been strong enough to warrant these reductions and in not announcing them until the very eve of the quadrennial election the outgoing board lias merely adopted an elementary piece of strategy. Fortunately the electioneering- in which Mr. Holdsworth indulged yesterday was of a very pleasant kind, and in appreciation of the belated favours the public may be inclined to overlook their purely tactical asiiect. The reductions cover several phases of power-supply, from street lighting, which is going to mean a considerable sum to the ratepayers of all local bodies concerned—even though it is only a few weeks since the over-cautious retailers of power doubted whether their position would allow them to make the reductions—to the totally unwarranted minimum charge which has long been a burden on the small consumer. Even now it is questionable if the board has carried its reductions to the small consumer far enough. Its most adroit explanations in the past have never allowed it to escape the position as set out in ihe Government Abstract of Statistics that, on a basis of a small cottage, Auckland’s bill for fuel and light is the highest of the four centres. If the reductions now announced go some distance toward altering this position it will be no premature adjustment. The board has all along conducted its business as if it were a private concern out purely for profit. It has hesitated at every point to concede the obvious principle that its consumers were entitled to the benefits of its success. It claims credit for great prudence; yet, dealing as it does in an attractive commodity in which it has an absolute monopoly, it has incurred the charge of carrying prudence too far. The new building in Queen Street, admittedly an ornament to the City, is a monument to its farsightedness in accumulating a substantial building fund, yet in view of the doubtful necessity for such a building such a reserve might have been better employed in giving benefits to consumers. At the end of four years Mr. W. J. Holdsworth may legitimately claim that his administration has been a success, but it has been something more than that. It has been a preposterous success.