THE PUBLIC DEBT.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LVII, Issue 153, 4 December 1914, Page 6

THE PUBLIC DEBT.

To the Editor, Sir,—ln the lengthy footnote to the letter of your correspondent, Mr 11. Larsen, of Uruti, published in your issuo of thia morning, you quote a lengthy array of figures, which you claim are indisputable, as they are taken from the Official Year Book of the Dominion. Now, sir, I do not intend to dispute the accuracy of the figures, but I do claim that, given as they are, without any explanatory note, thfcy are grossly misleading, and it is distinctly unfair to the less- well informed portion of your readers that information should be witheld, which, if given, would put an entirely different complexion upon them. Take, for instance, the increase in the public debt during 1912-13 of £5,706,850, it is quite true that none of this was for redemption of loans, but why conceal the fact that no less a sum than £2,£785,000 of this sum was spent before the Reform Government took office, £2,000,000 of it being required to repay temporary advances obtained by the Ward Government. Again, take your comparison of the average annual increase of the National indebtedness, under the Ward and Massey Governments, respectively. If we take the period from April, 1910, to July, 1812, 27 months under the WardMcKenzie Government, _we find that the total amount borrowed was £16,496,77» less £6,40-1,825 for redemption leaving a net total for the current use of the period of £10,031,950. Take 27 months of the Massey Government's tenure and we find the total amount borrowed is £14,630,800 of which £5,558,200 was for redemptions, leaving a net increase of £9,078,680, or £953,270 less than under the Liberal administration for the same length of time. Again, in the amounts authorised for the current year, it is well known that of the loan of £3, 200,000 for railway improvement, not more than £750,000 can be spent in a single year, and also that 'expenditure of the special loan of £1,000,000 for back block roads is spread over three years. Is it fair then, to debit the current year with the whole of this indebtedness"? The Reform Government, upon taking office, was obliged to borrow heavily to discharge the commitments of his predecessors; for instance, it became liable on account of State Advances to local authorities for £711,820, and tliero was only £98,783 available to meet the liability. Public Works Fund liabilities were £l,694,349, with only £777,088 to meet them.

The War loan of £2,000,000 is one which no one will take exception to, and it should not bo used to make political capital to the detriment of the Government which happens to be in power. I am afraid that I have trespassed rather heavily on your space, but I feel sure your sense of fair play will enisure its insertion in your widely circulated paper. —Yours, etc., ELECTOR. "We gave the. figures as they appear in the Official Year Book, and not with any idea of misleading our readers. The position is quite bad enough without that, Mr ' Allen prepared the Financial Statement for .1911-12 as well as the Financial Statement for 1912-13. In the former he showed in detail that the increase in the public debt during the last year of the Ward Government was £3,275,791 and in the latter that the increase during the first year of the Reform Government was £5,706,850. Borrowing to repay former loans does not, we frankly acknowledge., increase the' public indebtedness. However, according to "Elector's". line of argument, we will take the last two years only and we have the position thus presented:—Financial year, 1913-14, £4,693,084, current year (deducting war •loan) £10,425,000. Here we have a total of over £15,000,000 in two years without counting a penny of the Myers' loan or the 'war loan, and excluding redemptions. But our correspondent says it is unfair to include the full amount of this year's loan authorities because some of the items are spread over a series of years. Very well; let us take, the items: —Railway improvements, £750,000; backblocks, £333,000; Public Works, £3,000,000; State Advances to Settlers, £1,500,000; State Advances to Workers, £750,000; Land for Settlement, £500,000; Aid to Water Power, £285,000; Irrigation, £65,000; Waihou, £50,000; Rangitaiki, £50,000; Hauraki, £25,000; Total, £7,308,000.

[ The total amount for the two years is thus over £12,000,000, or at the rate of Six millions at year, a sum double that of the average increase during the Liberal regime which, remember, the Reformers stated was ruinous. Following our correspondent's line of argument, wo are ignoring the Myers' loan, the war loan (against which no objection lias ever'been raised by us), and taking into account only £750,000 of the Hilay railway loan of £3,200,000 and £330,000 of the million set down for local authorities (backbloeks) the, increase is approximately the same as we made it, namely, six millions per annum. We do not reproach the Government for this borrowing, except for the Hiley loan (which could well enough be left until the urgent requirements of the backblocks were met). What we do blame the Government for is for fragrantly breaking all its pledges in this respect, and then trying to shift the responsibility of the increase in the public debt on to its political opponents.—Ed.]