The Herald. PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1911. THE MISREPRESENTATIONS OF MR ROSS

Pahiatua Herald, Volume XV, Issue 4091, 17 November 1911, Page 4

The Herald. PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1911. THE MISREPRESENTATIONS OF MR ROSS

We are very sorry that already the sitting member for the Pahiatua seat is marring his campaign speeches with misrepresentation and abuse. We will 'deal with his references to this journal when we know more fully the grounds on which they are based, in the meantime we desire to correct Mr Ross on two points. He stated in his speech at Waipukurau that Mr Massey had opposed workers’ homes and the bill for extinguishing the public debt. It is a curious fact, and a tribute to the strength of the Reform party’s platform, that no Ministerial candidates are venturing to attack the platform. We have not been able to discover a Ministerial candidate who has argued against the reform of the Legislative Council by allowing the people to elect it, against the placing of the Civil Service beyond Ministerial control, against the reform of the local government system, and the adoption of a more scientific system of distributing money for roads and bridges, or against more careful finance and economy in administration. These are a few of the leading planks in the platform of the Reform party, and Ministerial candidates are refraining from criticising them, and are contenting themselves with quoting old division lists in an endeavour to disparage Mr Massey, often very unfairly. In justice to Mr Ross it should be said that he has probably fallen a victim to the election literature with which Ministerial candidates are usually so generously supplied by their party organisers. The Prime Minister was amongst the first to misrepresent Mr Massey on the subject of workmen’s homes, and other Ministerial candidates have been doing so with a unanimity that suggests instructions from headquarters. The real fact of the matter is that Mr Massey is practically the originator of the Advances to Workers’ Act. The position was fully set out in a manifesto, issued by the Auckland Executive of the Political Reform League, the! accuracy of which has not been challenged, and which Mr Ross presumably missed during his travels in the back-blocks. The facts set out in this manifesto

That on September 25, 190(j, in Committee on the Government Advances to Settlers Rill, Mr Massey moved the addition of the following new clause:

“When a loan is required for the erection of buildings on urban or suburban land which is not subject to any other encumbrances, the cost A erection (not exceeding £4OO on the whole, and not exceeding four times the value of the land), may, in tne discretion of the board, be advanced by instalments as the erection of the buildings proceeds.” Up to this time there had been io intimation on the part of the Government of its intention to extend the system to workers. Mr Massey’s amendment was opposed by Sir Joseph Ward, Sir Jas. Carroll, Mr Millar, Mr Fowlds, Mr Buddo, Mr Ngata, Mr Me-Nab, and the whole rank and file of the Government party.

The Government Advances to Workers’ Bill was not brought down until the following month, and Mr A. R. Barclay, in comenting upon the action of the Ward Government in the Dunedin Star of September 19, as a former member of the House and supporter of the Ward Government, stated :

“Mr Massey clearly was the first tc urge the Government advances tc workers. Why attempt to deny tin fact that the \\ ard Government were not the originators of the scheme: line, they carried out the proposal, hut 1 fear rather because they were driven to do so by Mr Massey’s action.”

Mr Ross’ other statement that Mr Massey had opposed the Bill for extinguishing the public debt is a halftruth. The Opposition did not challenge the third reading of the Bill, 11 when a division was called for (by two Government supporters it is to be noted) some voted for the Bill and some against. Mr Massey voted against the Bill, not because he opposed the principle of it, but because ho objected to some of the clauses on technical and financial grounds with which we need not weary our. readers. Mr Massey’s views on the Bill were expressed in the House on August 19, 1910, and we would refer to Hansard of that date any of our readers who are sufficiently interested. 'The Leader of the Opposition said, inter alia :

1 am not going to oppose any proposal which makes for the reduction or the extinction of the public debt, even at the end of seventy-five years; though I am bound to say this, that the history of our sinking funds has not been such as to command any confidence on the part of the public men of this country or its citizens. . .

I say that nothing in the way of sinking funds would command the confidence of the public men of this country so much as the using of money which is set apart by way of sinking fuiid for the purpose of cancelling debentures or meeting them as they fall due, paying off our loans at due date; and if we do that wo shall know exactly

where we are. There is very little that can be said against that system.

Mr Ross must know all this. H e must also know that when this Bill was under discussion Mr Massey urged an extension of the principle to provide for a sound scheme of depreciation on public buildings. He must also know that the Opposition moved a new clause to the Bill providing that in the case of loans falling due in ten years from the coming into operation of the Act these loans should be paid off so far as sinking funds were available for the purpose, and that Air Massey supported this amendment, although it was defeated. Yet, knowing these facts, Air Ross attempts to place the Leader of the Opposition in an unfair light by inferring that he is opposed to the extinction of the public debt. He will have some difficulty in persuading the public that the party to which he belongs is going the right way about extinguishing the debt by its reckless borrowing. Air Alassey’s desire to curtail borrowing as much as is consistent with the proper development of the Dominion and to extinguish the debt is well known, and the less Ministerialists say about our indebtedness the better for themselves. Alisrepresentation of the sort Air Ross is indulging in is hardly playing the game.