The Timaru Herald. THURSDAY, JUNE 19, 1924. MR WILFORD CONDEMNS LIBERAL FINANCE.

Timaru Herald, Volume XCVIII, Issue 18084, 19 June 1924, Page 6

The Timaru Herald. THURSDAY, JUNE 19, 1924. MR WILFORD CONDEMNS LIBERAL FINANCE.

oee.u regarded as a serious authority on national finance, til ere is no tiling- unreasonable m suggesting- tliai fie migfit live up to tfie standard ot political sincerity fie demands of iiis opponents. Tfie speech tfie Liue-rai-Labour Leader delivered at Waimate, was merely a repetition of fiis set campaign address, full of tfie electioneering' bubbles that have notfimg in tfiem save thin air. If, however, we may be permitted to offer- advice, we would urge Mr Wilford to proceed on tfie lines fie has chosen, since his heavy artillery " is directed point blank at the policy of the Liberal chiefs he professes to admire, more particularly as far as finance is concerned. “If the Liberal were returned to power,” Mr Wilford declared in the course of his peroration at Waimate, “they ,would claim to produce no Eldorado, but a return to the lines followed by Ballance, Seddon and Ward.” This is typically Wilford humour. In the course of his address Mr Wilford denounced Mr Massey for having a surplus in the Consolidated Fund. “If the surplus exists,” declared the Liberal-Labour Leader in a characteristically airy fashion, “it has been wrung from the people by over-taxation.” Having- delivered himself of this crushing indictment —of Liberal finance—Mr Wilford proceeded to denounce the practice of transferring a portion of the surplus to the Public Works Fund. “Mr Massey’s plan,” . shouts Mr Wilford, “to spend this money on public works is not good policy.” Capital works, in Mr Wilford’s judgment, should not he constructed out of taxes, but out of ■ loans, because the expenditure was for all time. Posterity should bear its share, and the surplus should be given back to the taxpayers by reductions of Customs duties, land or income taxes. No 'heavier attack has yet’. been hurled at the financial policy of the Seddon and Ward regimes! But Mr Wilford is equal to the occasion. One minute he is saying' he intends to return to tho lines followed by Ballance, Seddon and Ward; the nexi minute - he- is hotly denouncing the'policy of the Liberals. Let us look at the records. Mr Wilford claims to have sat in Parliament for twenty-eight years. What was the policy of the Liberals- between the time of Mr Wilford’s entry into Parliament and the coming of the Reform regime. What does the Year Book sayp Between 1896-97 and 1910-11 the Public Works Fund was assisted by contributions, from the* revenue oi the Consolidated Fund by the transfer of the undermentioned amounts: Year. Amount Transferred, a ’

ij 1896- . . . . . . 150,000 1897- 300,000 1898- 425,000 1899- 450,000 1900- 500,000 1901- 500,000 1902- 200,000 1903- 350,000 1904- 600,000 1905- 500,000 1906- ...... 775,000 1907- 800,000 1908- 800,000 19091910- 800,000 Did Mr Wilford protest? He' l declares his intention to return I to tlie lines followed by the lasi I of the Liberal leaders. What was i their policy in relation to the ! transfer of revenue to the> Public Works Fund? Of the Liberal regime prior to the advent of the Reform Government in 1912, the Few Zealand Hear Book says: “To the amount of excess revenue for the toil years (,1902-1911) must j be added the sum of £532,564 ! brought forward from the financial year ended 31st March, 1901, making a total of £5,911,484. Deducting the total amount transferred to the Public Works Fund, there remains a balance of £586,484, which has been i carried forward to tho current year’s | account. The total amount of excess 1 revenue transferred to the Public i Works Fund during the twenty financial years ended 31st March, 1911, was £8,030,000. The Minister of Finance proposes to transfer i £500,000 during the year ending 3'lst ! March, 1912. Thus in twenty years of Liberalism, no less a sum than £B,OdU,U(JO excess was ; transferred to the Public Works Fund ! Presumably Mr Wilford not only does not read the newspapers but he has not heard of the Year Book. It has remained for the least distinguished of the Liberal leaders to condemn the practice of the leaders whom he undertakes to emulate if the country will only _ take him seriously and put him on the j Treasury benches. Mr Wilford denounces Mr Massey for the 1 existence of a surplus. But what was the Liberal policy? Between . 1902 and 1911—and Mr Wilford sat in Parliament without voicing his protest —the Liberal, leaders in charge, of the Treasury, to use Mr Wilford's words, spoken at Waimato, " wrung fiom the people by over taxation,'’ the undermentioned millions : Surplus.

1902 237,92 b 1903 233,416 1904 695.836 1905 711,295 1906 “27,, aS 1907 704.030 U)08 850,024 1909 216.473 1910 247.995 1911 954,1(3, If Mi- 'Wilford would ‘'return to the lines billowed by Ballauee, Scdiloii and ’Ward," he would

proceed along" the lines of financial policy set by those distinguished Parliamentarians; m other words, Mr Wilford condemns Mi" Massey for continuing a practice which was so commendably statesmanlike when Slfowed by the early Liberal leaders, that Mr Wilford would follow in their footsteps if the responsibility of office were thrust upon his shoulders. Pan we wonder that no one accepts the Liberal-Labour Leader as a serious-minded parliamentarian.