"NIEMEYERISM IN NEW ZEALAND"

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 17, 20 July 1931, Page 8

"NIEMEYERISM IN NEW ZEALAND"

The Australian "Labour Daily" has given New Zealand front" page publicity. The free advertisement, however, is not inserted to advance the, movement recently launched for closer association between Commonwealth and Dominion. Rather, its aim seems to be to prevent good Australians from leaving, their native land to settle in a country where "Niemeyerism" and not "Langism" is the guiding rule. The article is, of course, biased and hopelessly inaccurate, but probably-that does not worry the "Labour Daily." Even on such a simple matter as the debt per head of population the writer is quite at sea. He states, the debts per head as New Zealand £168, Australia £165. The New Zealand Year Book-, gives '.; the net debts as New Zealand £178 (31st March, 1930), Australia £173 (30lh June, 1929); but. makes, the very, important note that New-Zealand's debt includes 35-i millions raised for State advances, which debt has no counterpart in Australia. Also, New Zealand has in the Publiq Debt Redemption Fund a capital set-off of 22 millions against the gross debt. Another inaccuracy is the reference to New Zealand conditions "under the Niemeyer Plan." .. The1 Dominion has no "Niemeyer. ■Plan.'y .Sir Otto Niemeyer came here to'report on banking and. currency questions.. In a . letter to the Acting-Prime.. Minister hie made a few comments on State xand national finance, but he did not lay down a "plan. What comments he offered showed that he deemed this unnecessary, because conditions here were surprisingly more favourable than, in Australia. In its comparisons- the ."Labour Daily" leaves much unsaid. It states that a five million deficit faced the Forbes Government here, but it does not mention the estimated total Australian deficit of forty-one millions (quoted by" Professor Copland in a recent article). It mentions that "for the first time in the history of the New Zealand the gag had to be used -to rush •> ruthless stuff through," but it does not state that the "gag" was in use in Australia many years previously, and that the "rush" it was introduced for in New Zealand was One which had resulted in the Bouse making no progress in a week of continuous sitting. "Statistics," it is stated, place the" unemployed,at a hundred thousand. So far.as "statistics" are concerned this is. only a little more than double the actual figure. Probably the "Labour Daily" regards this as near enough to accuracy. Certainly, it is hot much more inaccurate than ■■ severalother'statements in the.article. The "Labour Daily"- is happiest, however, when it leaves figures alone and depicts conditions in the Dominion in broad general terms. Some of these lenns'have a familiar sound; There, is, for illustr.atiori, the statement that "one-third of the missing revenue . was abstracted" • from the Civil Service,'-.which' is one-ninth of the adult population.. That grossly misleading assertion .was freely made by members of our own Labour Party.' One is puzzled to know, however, where the information was gleaned that "riots among hordes of unemployed have been common." Minor disturbances"^ stirred up by a few trouble-makers.in Auckland and Wellington have been checked by a handful of police, and have passed almost unnoticed here. Still, the "Labour Daily" is apparently quite convinced that conditions here are infinitely worse than in Australia, though, the "wholesale wage-slash-ing" (10. per cent.) 'came much later than in Australia, though the Public Service cut of 10 per cent, compares favourably with the= Australian 20 per. cent., though ''the credit of the country is bad and loan money refuses to How Lo New Zealand," whereas we have at least raised a loan of £5,000,000 and AusLralia dare not venture on the market, and. though the comparative lack of

success of our last loan was authoritatively ascribed to our proximity to Australia. The "Labour Daily" does not explain, however, why, if Australia is so much sounder and stronger, her adverse exchange rale is three times as high as New Zealand's. Probably the explanation would be that this was due entirely to the Machiavellian machinations of moneyed interests. We may be permitted to hope, however, that the "exposure" of New Zealand's terrible plight will not so touch the hearts of Mr. Lang aiid his followers that they will send emissaries here to save us as they are saving New South Wales. ; . '