The New Zealand Times. TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 1914. RAINBOW REJOICINGS

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 8652, 10 February 1914, Page 4

The New Zealand Times. TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 1914. RAINBOW REJOICINGS

The Hon. F. M. B. Fisher, who has probably done more than anybody else to make '“.Reform” odious, gave a characteristic interview to a Christchurch reporter the other day. According tc th© Rainbow Minister, the political outlook everywhere is “tip-top.” This optimistic prospect applies, of course to tho Tory party, and appears to b< based upon tho successful flotation of i huge loan, an increase in the value o: the country’s' exports, and the expen diture of over half a million sterling in the purchase of a few squatters’ estates for settlement. As to the loan, Mr Fisher has made the ridiculous claim that its success “is almost unexampled in the history of tho Dominion’s finance.” There is only out answer to this. The versatile Ministei is either ignorant of New Zealand’s financial history or else he is determined to ignore the salient facts oi Libdral finance spread over a couple of decades and more. Has Mr Fisher —to mention one example out of many —never heard of the 3 per cent! loar raised in London by Sir Joseph Ward in order to establish the advances tc settlers scheme? When the self-styled "Reformers” can point to anything approaching that transaction for success and evidence of capnoity, they will be entitled to consideration. The re-cently-floated loan was successful because there was a plethora of money awaiting investment in London, and because New Zealand was offering 4 per cent, interest and good security. The over-subscription had nothing tc do with “Reform” and its alleged wonderful virtues —clpe why were the two loans of last year so disappointing? How was it that the February loan of 1913 is easily the most expensive the New Zealand taxpayer has been made responsible for in the last quarter of a century ? The Tory “Reform” party was in office then, buf still we had to pay an abnormal price for our money. And what about the October loan ? Tho Government had then almost completed its second session of much-advertised and amazing “reform”—and its loan was described in tho London press as a “fiasco” and a “sensational failure.” That was only four months ago, but apparently Mr Fisher has conveniently forgotten all about it, just as the repeated successes of Sir Joseph Ward in managing this country’s finances have also been erased from tho memory of the apostle of political inconsistency. Then lot ns take a fair view of the position as to the increased value of produce exported last year as compared with the value in 1912. What, after all, is the true situation? And what bad “Reform” to do with it? Practically the whole of the increase is represented in one item—wool. The extra money received for that commodity unfortunately goes for the main part into a few pockets already very comfortably lined. Squattocracy has more cause to rejoice over the circumstance than has the general community. Moreover, tho increased return was due almost solely to enhanced prices obtained abroad rather than to any increase in the volume of production. If “Reform” is going to take credit to itself —and that is clearly Mr Fisher’s intention —for an increased return of nearly two million pounds for wool exported, then it must in fairness accept censure for a drop of nearly three-quarters of a million in respect of grain, a substantial falling off in tho yield from exported potatoes, and a number of other decreases That is, unless the rainbow gentleman is seriously prepared to say that the increases are duo to the heroic perfections of himself and his colleagues, and the decreases to the inquities of the Liberals —to the blocking of the Estimates pending tho production of departmental reports, or to the obstruction by the democratic forces of the impudent repeal of the Second Ballot Act without the promised substitute. Clearly, if tho Tory Ministers are going to put a halo round their heads when and because the sun shines, they will also have to take responsibility for the bad weather, which will be awkward, as well as ridiculous. The -announcement that the Government has purchased 140,000 acres of land, and is sending in the bill, amounting to nearly £560,000, to the taxpayers, the bulk of whom are landless and aro likely to be landless, as one that we absolutely decline to cheer about. We say emphatically that the Government is securing this land by the wrong moans, that it is not buying tho right class of land, and that it is paying excessive prices. We assert with confidence that the repurchase policy has outlived its usefulness. We say that it is no longer justified, in any circumstances, now that the magnificent system of State tenantry built up by the liberals in the interests of settlement has been disrupted and destroyed in tho interests of the Tory party. Does Mr Fisher really and truly describe this discreditable business as “tip-top”? Mr Fisher, the one-time “new Liberal,” the gentleman. who at the last election so strenuously proclaimed his leasehold principles, and declared that nothing would induce him to join a freehold Cabinet—can he. dare he, look upon the political outlook as "tip-top”

when the ‘'Reform” horizon is clouded with the most flagrant abuses of power, the sacrifice of the public estate for paltry party purposes, the raising of huge loans contrary to all pledges, file piling up of taxation upon the people, the disgraceful abandonment and renunciation of promises .solemnly made to the people when their votes were required Y Instead of prating an the South Island about the glories of ‘•Reform,” Mr Fisher (night to bo addressing his constituents in Wellington Central and explaining how he can reconcile his leasehold pledge with his position in the Ministry. Instead of boasting about '‘Reform” bo ought to be apologising for bis' association -with that party. But the honourable gentleman might not find that task “tiptop.”