The Evening Star FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 1928. THE DIFFERENCE.

Evening Star, Issue 20019, 9 November 1928, Page 6

The Evening Star FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 1928. THE DIFFERENCE.

Last night at South Dunedin Mr Charles Todd said that “there was not much difference between the policy of the United Party and that of the Reform Party—in fact, the United Party had no policy until Sir Joseph Ward went to Auckland, and all he had done there was to repeat the Reform platform, plus .£70,000,000. Prosperity was the outstanding issue at this election, and if inexperienced men were elected they might try dangerous experiments, such us Sir Joseph Ward s borrowing scheme.” On being reminded by one oi his audience that £70,000,000 represented n. considerable difference, Mr Todd retorted: “ And if w© get the £70,000,000 we will have to pay for it.” But the proposed series of loans will be exclusively for reproductive pur noses. Sir Joseph Ward, speaking last night to an immense gathering ia hie home town, repented that it was not intended to ask this country to provide one penny for the borrowed money, as the borrowers (i.e., those to whom the State relends the money) would nay all the cost. His critics, chiefly those on the .Reform side, continue to ridicule the possibility of tills, and they profess to remain sceptical also as to whether the money would be procurable in London on the terms set forth by the Leader of the United Party. But Sir Joseph Ward Ims had all the best of the argument. He has recently visited England, and evidently while there he has made it his business to find out how much money would be available for New Zealand and on what terms it would be lent. If the information or the promises which his inanities elicited ore from a reliable source—and a man of Sir Joseph Ward’s political and financial standing and experience would go to no other than reliable sources—then all controversy should end. The money would be available on the terms stated, and, that being so, the loan would he self-supporting—-always presuming that a prudent margin is fixed between the amount of the advance and the value of the security offered by the settler borrowing from the State.

There would thus be the introduction of fresh capital to a country which Sir Joseph Ward, who is a man of affairs in the business as well at the political world, considers to be under-capital-ised. And many other people, including those who support the present Government, are also of opinion that the country is under-capitalised. The Government also is of that opinion, otherwise one of its planks would be the instant and complete cessation, of all public borrowing. The real difference between the Reform and the United Parties is that, whereas Reform admits certain tacts and is inclined to deplore them, it professes inability to remedy them. Sir Joseph Ward, on the other hand, while admitting the same facts, expresses a determination to tackle them, and shows how it could be done successfully. Xu short, on this occasion Sir Joseph is “the man who gets things done.” Early in his political career he brought forward similar bold proposals under somewhat similar circumstances, and woe told that his scheme was quite unworkable. He promptly showed that it was workable, and it is working still, and has been over since he initiated the Advances to Settlers Department. But it is not working to capacity, as is evidenced by the long delays, sometimes two year's, before applications by settlers for loans are dealt with. The reason is a shortage of working capital due to the popularity of a scheme based on such sound, yet liberal and sympathetic lines. Sir Joseph Ward proposes to make good the shortage of capital. It is because people are coming gradually to realise the pith of his proposals that they arc now approving his scheme, whereas when he first propounded it tboy were scared by its magnitude. So used have people become to narrow statesmanship that when broad statesmanship is introduced they mistake it for rashness.

So used also are people to hearing of the bad deal the Government made in acquiring land for returned soldiers and putting them on it that they meekly accept the Government's declaration that there can be no more closer settlement of any kind in New Zealand except at heavy expense to the general taxpayer. (Therefore, though closer settlement nominally remains part of the Reform policy—for it has

not yet, so far as we know, been formally repudiated and banned by bell, book, and candle—many of the people are resigned to seeing it at a dead standstill. Not so Sir Jpseph Ward, Though there may be little difference on paper between the Reform and the United Party’s land policy, there is a vast difference in this respect: Sir Joseph is prepared to act on his convictions, while Mr Coates and Mr M'.Leod would hark back to returned soldiers’ land revaluations and writing down, and preach the gospel of “once bitten, twice shy,” Because the Reform Government made a moss of its one big attempt at land acquisition and subdivision, there is no need whatever to assume that no other Government could do any hotter. One thing appears certain, and that is that until there' is a change of Government there will bo no alteration in the land administration, whioh is at present suspect of being decidedly reactionary and retrogressive.