DOMINION’S FINANCE.

Hawera Star, Volume XLV, 28 August 1925, Page 5

DOMINION’S FINANCE.

CRITICISED BY MR SIDEY. (BY TELEGRAPH PRESS ASSOCIATION.) WELLINGTON, Aug. 27. The Imprest Supply Bill was introduced in the House to-night by G overnor-G eneral’s message. On the motion that the House go into committee of supply, Mr T. K. Sidey (Dunedin South) referred to the public accounts, and said he had noticed that the Minister had been drawing favourable conclusions from the results of the hist quarter of the financial.year-. He was glad to note that in some respects a satisfactory position, was disclosed as compared with last year. This applied to the banking returns. The ratio of advances to deposits was less, and he observed that the Minister had specially mentioned the Post Office Savings Bank returns, which disclosed an excess of deposits over withdrawals ~of over £500,000. The results, however, of one quarter might be quite unreliable as an index to the position for the whole year. Again, while most sources of ordinary revenue showed an increase for the June quarter as compared with the same quarter last year, after taking into account credits in reduction of expenditure or in aid of revenue, it would he found that the increases were more than absorbed by the increase in expenditure. The revenue increased by £480,000, while the expenditure under permanent and annual appropriations increased by £51,000. Continuing, he observed that favourable comparisons were being made in relation to exports and imports. Taking the first six month's of the year, if the first quarter were eliminated it would lie found that these comparisons were not so favourable for the June quarter. Although the number of bales of wool and the total value of the wool export showed an increase, the total exports for the June quarter of the current year was £2,678,000, or over £2,500,000 less than for the June quarter of last year.' The imports were less by £1,077,000, but the excess of exports over imports was also less by over £1,500,000 in value than for the June quarter of last year. This did not justify the favourable comments of the Minister. It would be observed that in order to finance for the June quarter the Minister had been obliged to issue £1,250,000 in Treasury bills as against only £600,000 for the first quarter of last year, this apparent! v "because he had' less cash in the public account. When the Minister stated that his estimated expenditure for the .current year was £758,145 more than the amount appropriated last year the comparison was unfair, because he compared the current year’s main Estimates only without the Supplementary Estimates with last year’s total appropriations. If £500,000 allowed for the Supplementary Estimates were taken into account it would be seen that the current year’s Estimates exceeded last Year’s appropriations by £1.250.000. Similarly, when th© Minister stated that his Estimates for the current year were £1,625,000 more than his actual expenditure for last year, that, comparison was made without reference, to'the Supplementary Estimates. Adding the amount required for the Supplementary Estimates, his estimated expenditure for the current year was over £2.000,000 more than the actual expenditure last year. TWe Bill, appropriating £1,994,800 in payment of wages, salaries and contingencies, was passed through all stages.