THE HALT POLICY

Gisborne Times, Volume LXIII, Issue 10141, 29 October 1925, Page 5

THE HALT POLICY

PREMIER DISSECTS NATIONALIST CRITICISM. 3. “NON-BORROWING MEANS NON-DEVELOPMENT.” SOME CAREFULLY OVERLOOKED FACTS. (Special to tho Times.) NEW PLYMOUTH, Oct. 26. In the course of a speech at Inglewood this afternoon, the Prime Minister made special reference and replied to some of the criticism which lias been levelled at the Government. Tlie meeting was largely attended, notwithstanding that it was held in the ; afternoon and on a public holiday,’ when there were strong counterattractions. Mr Coates reminded tlie electors that they were going to the polls on November 4, and that was a matter entirely for them' whether they ' got a Labor Government or a Government with a sound stable platform. He said that tho present Government stood for sound finance and aimed at giving equal opportunity to all. They realised that to do justice to all, the State must bo wealthy, and that in order to attain that, the Government must make a success of the business of the country. If the Government' so managed its affairs that there was wealth accumulated, there was something to distribute among the people. Ho thought it was fairly clear in the minds of tlie electors that all the humanitarian legislation which had been found on the statute book in 1912 had been extended and brought up-to-date, and it would be admitted also that many other beneficial measures had been added.

“In regard to finance,” said Mr. Cbates, “the electors would hear that the present Government were extravagant and all sorts of figures would he quoted to endeavor to prove that it could not manage the country. Let me tell you, he said, that no set of men could have been more careful than those who form the Government at the present time. Some of those who have been criticising the finance of the Government know when they are using them that their figures are incorrect. They say that the cost of administration has been increased by £l-5,000,000 since 1912. Take some of the causes: The first is the war debt. That was the money borrowed to allow New Zealand to take her place alongside England when honor and freedom were threatened. To criticise that expenditure is simply to say that New Zealand should not have taken her place in the field. Do any of, the critics want to say that? Of the £15,000,000 in question, the sum of £8,000,000 goes down to tlie war. There was a balance of £7,000,000. The critics will persist in adding tlie cost of railways and post offices to annual administration costs, and you know that both have paid their own way and have showed surpluses above the cost of working. That reduces tlie £7,000.000 to £6,000,000, in increased costs.

“Those opposed to the Government,” he proceeded, “forget that the Government had to make up to the employees the equivalent of the increased cost of living. That amounts to about 69 per cent. But we will say 50 per cent. That means increasing the wages by one-third, so that we have £2,500,000 to be added for the cost of living, and anyone who argues against that says that the civil servants should not have had an increase. “The real test was how much more had the Government loaded the people up with,” said the Premier, “since 1914. . Well the amount in 1914 was £3 5s 6d per head, and the amount to-day was' £3 0s 9d. Then they say where is the Government getting to in connection with the public debt ? They say there is a public debt of £221,000,000. You have to remember there has been a war, which added £76,000.000. They try to compare our position with that of European countries. But there is no comparison at all, for the “reason that they have dead weight debt and much of ours is developmental. Of the £221,000,000 of our debt, 75 per cent is interest-earning.

“Since 1912 £66,000',000 has been borrowed and £60,600,000 is interestearning, or 90 per cent is not costing us a penny. We have borrowed money for developmental purposes and we are getting interest from all except that put into schools and roads, and as long as we are developing the country and making no charge on the taxpayer, I see no reason why we should not go on, “We are told that it is time to call a halt still. There will lie no halt so far as I am concerned. We have a great country, and so long as we follow sound business lines it will not bo wise to stop developing/' “Now I want to know,” said Mr Coates, “seeing that it is said that our bonowing policy is criticised, how can we develop without money? What are they going to say? They must say stop developing if they say stop borrowing, and it will be interesting to know what it is they really want. They cannot blow hot and cold. If they say we must call a halt, they must say that we have to stop the finishing off of our Uncompleted railways and roads, our swamp drainage works and! all sorts of things and such a course is one no sane business man would' take-.

“It seems- to- me 1 that if we can borrow money at a rate at which it will pay us to continue these developmental schemes it is far better to go on developing' the resources of New Zealand than be standing still and making- no progress whatever. It is contended also that what money we borrow we should borrow in New Zealand. But my opinion is that it is unwise to take that courso and wiser to leave the money that is in the country as free as possible to be used hy the people in the development of their own industries. “Jf you put the present Government back into power. you will see the programme put into operation and you will see- t'lh? country pros-' per in consequence. > If you stop development, the country is going to be stagnant.”' ... “Everyone knows,, of course, that care has to be takeir, and none more than we do. But we are not afraid of the future.”' Mr Coates” reply to liis critics was heartily applauded', and’ Mr A. Morton moved a vote of confidence in. the Government, and expressing also the hope that the Prime Minister would return from the pol'lfc with a .majority sufficient to enable him to cany out his policy. The seconder. Mr Stewart, thanked the Prime Minister for the very; fair treatment he had meted out to-the settlers of the district. The ; nrotion was carried was acclamation. :