NEW ZEALAND'S PROBLEM

Evening Post, Volume CXXVIII, Issue 5, 6 July 1939, Page 8

NEW ZEALAND'S PROBLEM

(To the Editor.)

Sir, —Mr. Parlane professes ignorance of phrases used by the representatives of his parly, but which have become common knowledge. It really does not matter whether the phrase "spending our way to prosprity" has or has not been used by the Prime Minister; the whole of the Labour Government's policy has been spendthrift and has landed New Zealand in the position that a spendthrift usually reaches.

I do not know why Mr. Parlane assumes that the previous Government was "New Zealander's" Government. Possibly it is because I dare to criticise the present policy of his party. I may inform him that I am prepared to support a sane Labour Government, if such a phenomenon could appear in New Zealand, a Government wnich secured to each section of the community what it deserved, that is. its contribution to the national income. The Roman Empire fell through the weakening of the moral fibre of its people; amongst the devices to secure support for the Government was the provision of "bread and games" free, to distract the people's attention from affairs of State. This Government is "bulldozing" the people with the idea that nothing matters but the 40-hour week and higher wages, and that the motor-cars on the road and high totalisator returns are an index of prosperity.

A few weeks ago we were startled by the announcement that the British Budget for the current year exceeded £900,000,000, and we were told that the British taxpayers accepted this enormous sum because it included some hundreds of millions for defence. The population of Great Britain is, roughly, thirty times that of New Zealand, so, to translate New Zealand figures to correspond with those of Great Britain we must multiply by thirty.

It is generally anticipated that the New Zealand Budget for the current year will be about £60,000,000. This corresponds to £1,800,000,000 in Great Britain. Taxation in 1937-38 was over £36,750,000, which corresponds to £1,102,500,000!. Add to this thirty times the increased note circulation and thirty times the exchange depletion, and we have some measure of the extravagance of the Labour Government. Can we support this and still maintain our "prosperity"? I remember when I was young the papers were_ full of the exploits of a young man "named Juggins who squandered the whole of an enormous fortune in i\vo or three years. His name has be-^ come proverbial, and this Government, which has squandered so many millions of taxpayers' money and the fortune it inherited from its predecessor deserves to be called "The Juggins Government."

In your issue of Friday, June 16, Mr. Savage, commenting on the London financial critics, is reported to have said: "The whole of our efforts have been given to providing a sterling surplus, and the least they might do is to give us a chance." Is this the same Mr. Savage who a few months ago convinced a majority of the electors that he and his colleagues were the right men to lead New Zealand to the Promised Land?

I saw a week or two ago that one of the Ministers, addressing a Christchurch audience, declared that the exchange position was due to "financial gangsters." Such utter rubbish is swallowed readily by the supporters of tha Government, who do not know that local inflation and high Government expenditure' lead to an abnormal demand for consumable and luxury goods, such as sugar and motor-cars, and hence to an abnormal demand for exchange to pay for them If we do not have exchange, or if we cannot get exchange by exporting goods, we cannot pay except by raising loans on the London market. It is probably true that some people or institutions which held money in New Zealand foresaw the application of restrictions, and, requiring their money somewhere else, transferred it Who can blame them?

A nightly broadcast from the national YA stations is supplied by the Prime Minister's Department, and glowing accounts are given of extensions to factories already in existence and the licensing of new ones, with the employment of great numbers of new hands. It would be surprising if, after three years of high export values, there were no expansion of industry; in fact, even during the depression years new firms set up and some old firms extended their activities. But this Government takes all the credit. One would think that prior to 1939 New Zealand had no manufactures. It would be interesting to know what type of labour is employed in these new and extending concerns. I strongly suspect that women form the vast majority. And it must be emphasised that these new industries will not add one penny to our exchange funds, since, owing to our high costs, we cannot export manufactured goods other than the products of the farm. We had thriving industries, employing many thousands, before Mr. Savage was heard of .—I am, qXq NEW ZEALANDER.