The Southland Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. Luceo Non Uro. TUESDAY, OCTOBER 16, 1928. MR P. DE LA PERRELLE’S FIGURES

Southland Times, Issue 20617, 16 October 1928, Page 6

The Southland Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. Luceo Non Uro. TUESDAY, OCTOBER 16, 1928. MR P. DE LA PERRELLE’S FIGURES

Mr de la Perrelle declares that the United Party is really the Old Liberal Party united with “a vast body of electors determined to bring about that prosperity and contentedness the country once enjoyed under the regime of Liberalism,” but it is evident that those who form the Old Liberal Party are by no means satisfied that the old name is synonymous with these things, because actually the United Party is composed of. politicians who preferred to call themselves Nationalists united with others eager to get into power. The prosperity and contentedness of the days under the Liberal regime were not brought about by the Liberals and any student of the political and economic history of this country is well aware of that fact. In the days of rising prices “prosperity and contentedness” are present without regard to the Government in office because these things depend on conditions which no Ministry in New Zealand can control. When prices recede the tale is the same. The Government of the day can soften the effect of the fall, but it cannot bring “prosperity and contentedness” though its task in administering the affairs of the country is very much more difficult and calls for more statesmanship. The United Party, with its new name, seeks to take what glory it can from a political organization, the name of which it is not prepared to wear. It is quite safe to say that this country admires Liberalism; it discarded the Liberal Party. Mr de la Perrelle’s examination of the Public Debt in order to convict the Reform regime of excessive borrowing is interesting as an example of the careless manner in which the figures can be used. In the days of the Liberal Government the Public Debt wisely was analysed to show what portions were reproductive or paid their own interest and what portions represented nonproductive dead-weight debt, and the comparison between 1911 and 1927 is interesting, though perhaps Mr de la Perrelle does not like to break up the figures in this

This leaves us with a Non-Productive deadweight debt of £94,636,492 in 1927, but if we take off the debt arising out of the War, £73,563,181, we find the comparison as fol- , lows: March 31. Non-Productive Debt. Per Capita. £ £ s d 1911 .... 19,665,968 19 4 0 1927 .... 21,073,311 15 7 0 These figures show that actually the unproductive debt as shown in The Official

Year Book is not so heavy on the population. These figures are confirmed by the N.Z. Taxpayers’ Association which, using a stricter definition of non-production in indebtedness (less the War purposes debt), puts the per capita figure at £2l 3/, compared with £35 3/8 a head in 1914. The increase in the indebtedness from 1911 to 1914 was £ll 3/- a head and if we take the whole of that from the 1914 figures we find a non-productive debt according to the Taxpayers’ Association of £24 a head, making this comparison:

Dealing with interest, Mr de la Perrelle says ; the interest bill was £2 5/10 a head and rose to £5 19/- in 1927, but while he took the War Debt from the aggregate figures he neglected to adapt this plan, which he admits is fair, to the interest figures. It is not easy 4o find the actual interest paid on War Debt loans, but assuming that the rate paid is not higher than the average over the whole debt (an assumption not fair to the 1927 figures) the per capita charge of the debt on the Consolidated Fund becomes £4 12/-, an increase of £2 7/2 in sixteen years wholly on productive or indirectly productive debt. When the debt figures are properly examined the grounds for Mr de la Perrelle’s indignation collapse. It is to be hoped that in his later speeches he will correct his figures and give the electors the benefit of a proper analysis of the situation. Dealing with taxation, Mr de la Perrelle stated that last year it worked out at £ll 8/5 a head, which “more than trebled’-’ the rate in 1911. He is hardly correct—the 1911 figure was £4 12/4, including Maoris, and £4 16/11 excluding Maoris. But these figures are unreliable because they fail to make clear to the electors the effect of the increased value of imports on which Customs is levied. In 1911 Customs and excise produced £3,145,929 or £3 2/9 a head, while in 1928 Customs and excise brought in £8,552,213, or £6 4/7 a head. The increase in the return from the Customs is not due to a higher tariff, but to increased purchases by the people—roughly to .three times the amount of 1911. It is necessary also to deduct the charges for War Debt loans which swell the per capita to the extent of at least £1 7/-. Outside of the Customs the per capita increase from 1911 to 1928 is £3 14/3, which includes, of course, the Totalisator Tax and Death Duties which in 1911 represented (Death Duties only) 7/4 a head and in 1928 about £1 6/- a head. Mr de la Perrelle should be more careful in dealing with the increased cost of the administration. For instance, he repeats the old complaint that the cost of the High Commissioner’s Office in London increased from £6,269 in 1914 to £25,287 in 1928, quite overlooking the fact that all costs were up by at least 50 per cent, over the 1914 base and the duties of the High Commissioner’s Office after the war were necessarily extended. And exactly how the cost of local government is to be blamed to the Government, which alone of all governments in this country has endeavoured to check the borrowing of local bodies, is hard to say.* That it is desirable to check the drift to the towns cannot be questioned, but governments of all shades of opinion in all parts of the world have found it difficult to turn the tide back to the rural areas. It would be interesting to see how Mr de la Perrelle or his colleague who dreams of Cabinet rank, Mr W. E. Taylor, would achieve this. The desirability is acF mitted, but what do they propose to do about it?

way:— * 1911. 1927. £ £ Productive .. 27.741.785 67.674.029 Investments . 23,348,518 61,530,783 Indirectly Productive . . 10,321,851 22,048,985 Non-productive 19,665,968 94,636,492 81,078,122 245,850,889

Non-Productive Debt 1911 . . . per capita. £ s d 24 0 0 1927 . . . 21 3'0