FINANCES OF FIJI.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LX, Issue 18471, 7 August 1923, Page 4

FINANCES OF FIJI.

YEAR'S DEFICIT OF £80,205.

REVIEW BY THE TREASURER.

[feom OUB OWN CORRESPONDENT.] ■'■•' SUVA. July 21. The Colonial Treasurer gave some interesting information to the Legislative Council when introducing a Supplementary Appropriation Bill. Ho said that the revenue for 1922 was £450,165 or £119,567 less than for 1921. The principal decreases were import dues £16,096, export dues, £23,311, income tax and business profits tax together £111,298. This abnormal falling off in revenue was duo mainly to general trade depression, but also due to some extent to the policy adopted by the Government of abandoning export dues, which was initiated during the year. : . The expenditure was £530,361, or £221,677 less than for the previous year. Owing to a strict policy of retrenchment, however,-the deficit was less by £102,100 than for 1921. .. The net deficit for 1922 was £80,205, increasing the surplus of liabilities over assets from £163,275 to £243,481.; He estimated that even with »the new taxation, passod at the 'sitting,- there would remain at the end of the year a deficit of about £40,000 ' He tempered [ this somewhat distressing statement by assuring the members that while he could not hope; for a financial credit before 1925 yet the signs of a general trade improvement were very substantial and promising. He regarded the. outlook as good and hoped to give some definite news of the much, desired loan before the end of 1923. , _. ~ There is a general air of hopefulness among the business community. THE NEW RESIDENTIAL TAX. UNPOPULAR WITH INDIANS. [EEOM our OWN correspondent.] SUVA. July 21. - ■For some years Fiji had a hut tax by which some £23,000 per annum was added ! to the Treasury. Out of this total only about £2000 was contributed by members of the Indian community, but the Indians made a great clamour about it and the odious tax was repealed. Now the Government is facing a considerable deficit, money must be obtained in some way and among other proposal.the residential tax was proposed. At the .Legislative Council sitting, just over, this tax was agreed to, in apito of the protest of the Indian member. An amendment to raise the age limit from 16 to 18 was only carried by the casting vote of the Governor. The new ordinance calls for an annual payment by all male persons of 18 years and over, not being native Fijians or Rotumans, of £1 per annum. The natives are excluded because they already pay an annual tax of about £1 each, besides their provincial tax. The only opposition is from the Indians, who have been rather stirred up about it, and there aro rumours that there is a widespread movement among them to passively oppose the pay ment of the tax. How far this will affect collection of the tax remains to be 'seen, but there is little doubt but that there will be considerable trouble in collecting .the £1 from the Indians.;:' The tax is only leviable on those who receive £60 per annum and over, and as this is a greater sum than the average Indian labourer receives. ; the Indians who are liable will be of the better class. As the average Indian who.receives £60 per annum is looked upon as in comfortable circumstances, the poorly-paid European is the man with the most cause to grumble. ; ■■. V- ' ', It is estimated that the new tax will yield about £23.000 per annum, but the cost of collection will be expensive. h<