EDITORIALS.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 766, 5 November 1886, Page 22

EDITORIALS.

\ Unsatisfactory as the revenue returns for the past six months undoubtedly are, it can answer no good purpose to make them out even worse than the reality. It appears to us that a statement which has been put forth authoritatively does, in its bald unexplained shape, convey an unduly gloomy impression of tbe financial situation. That the Treasurer’s estimates of revenue for the current year were over-sanguine we never entertained any doubt at all. This opinion we freely expressed on the delivery of the Financial Statement, and it was held by the large majority of those who were competent to form a judgment. But it was equally manifest all along that the Government had reasons of their own for presenting a rose-coloured view of the colonial finances. Some of these reasons were palpable enough. Ministers were anxious to postpone the evil .day of increased taxation—until next year, at any rate. They were fully aware how firm a resolution had been arrived at by the House not to sanction any increase in the general taxation this year —unless, indeed, it had been some alight advance in the Property Tax, to which the Treasurer was wholly opposed —and so they skilfully evaded the danger by boldly asserting that the -revenue would be ample for all their purposes. Parliament was easily persuaded to accept an assurance which rendered apparently unnecessary an increase in the public burdens, and accordingly the Revenue estimates were not seriously challenged. But before Parliament rose we drew attention to the very formidable deficiency already existing, and urged the propriety of adopting some measures to meet the threatened difficulty. It was all in vain: members were too eager to draw the balance of their honorarium and go home, to be willing to involve themselves in a contention which was sure to be twisted into a “ want-of-eonfidence,” and so matters were allowed to drift with the result that the revenue deficiency for the first half of the current financial year is now declared through the customary channel of inspired Ministerial communications to be no less than “ £257,449,” or at the rate of £514,898 for the full year—a deficiency of close upon £515,000 per annum !

This would be a most alarming condition of affairs were the whole truth contained in such a statement. But such is not the case, as we shall show directly. When at the beginning of the month we estimated the Customs deficiency for the half-year at about £73,500 we were flatly contradicted (through the same channel as that already referred to) and were told authoritatively that it was only £57,401. We accepted that statement, as it was borne out by the complete figures published at the same time. But now we are informed through the same medium that the Customs deficiency is not £57,401, as previously alleged, but “ £78,603’ a difference of over £20,000. A few lines lower down it is asserted that the Property Tax estimate “ fq£_ the year is £156,000,” the fact being that the Treasurer’s estimate was £312,000, all of which has virtually to came in during the second half of the year. Here there is a difference of £156,000, the probable receipts of the second half-year being understated to that extent. Further, the figures given as those of the Customs, Railway, and other receipts, are simply these as gazetted, whereas it was recently pointed out by Sir Julius Vogel that the gazetted returns would not accurately represent the actual revenue receipts, but would only show the sum brought to account in the Treasury. This makes a material difference. For instance, the half-year’s Customs as gazetted by the Treasury are £626,397, but as gazetted by the Customs Department are £847,596, or some £21,000 more than shown in the Treasury returns. So also with Railways. The Treasury accounts credit Railway revenue with £451,458, whereas the actual receipts were about £465,000, Thus in these two items alone the aggregate receipts amounted to some £35,000 more than the Treasury accounts show, and the deficiency is therefore so much less than stated. The remaining items ex hibit, we understand, a proportionate discrepancy between the two sets of official figures, but as_ the second set is not gazetted there is no means of checking them. But if we may allow the same average difference in their case the deficiency would be very con-

siderably reduced, probably below '£200,000. This is indeed a most formidable shortcoming to face, and will tax to the utmost the Treasurer’s ingenuity, but there is no possible advantage in exaggerating the gravity of the situation. Things are bad enough, but not so bad as represented. It is, perhaps, just as well that the new loan was floated before the half-year’s results became known. We do not anticipate, however, that the revenue deficiency for the whole year will greatly exceed that for the half-year. The best fiscal months have still to come, and, substantially, all the Property Tax for this year has yet to be collected. But while matters are not quite so black as the gazetted accounts would make them appear, they are dark enough to arouse Government, Parliament, and public alike to the perception that the position will have to be boldly and resolutely faced at no distant date, and that our finances will have to be placed on a sounder footing, mainly by cutting down expenses. The expenditure return for the half-year we do not notice, for the very good reason that it tells us nothing, unless we know how the returns have been arrived at. We do know how last year’s nominal surplus of £37,000 was obtained, and that is highly instructive.