THE New Zealand Times (PUBLISHED DAILY). TUESDAY, APRIL 15, 1890.

New Zealand Times, Volume LI, Issue 8964, 15 April 1890, Page 4

THE New Zealand Times (PUBLISHED DAILY).

TUESDAY, APRIL 15, 1890.

With which are incorporated the Weilingiw Independent, ettabluhed 1816, and the Nev Kealander,

In another column of this issue vve publish what we have good reason to believe is the net result of the past financial year’s operations. A few days may pass before our figures are authoritatively confirmed, bat we entertain no doubt that they will be proved substantially correct. A surplus of £116,000 is such a solid and tangible balance to the good that we feel justified in congratulating both the Government and the Colony upon the favourable condition of the public finances. A surplus of “ six figures ” is not a common occurrence in New Zealand. It is all the more welcome when it does fall to our lot, and although a surplus of £116,000 falls somewhat short of the over sanguine quarter-million estimate of the hon member for Thorndon,it is, at any rate, a welcome —and, we trust, permanent—change from halfmillion deficits.

THE BHBPLUB,

We have noticed lately with regret a revival of the unworthy and an patriotic practice of endeavouring, for party purposes, to depreciate the Colony’s financial position, and to disprove the existence of any balance at all on the right side. Experience has not shown this discreditable practice to be a high-road to political success or to the public confidence. It would be strange indeed were systematic disparagement of the Colony’s financial soundness to be a passport to the favour of its inhabitants. One of these most recent attempts is so transparently fallacious* and so glaringly demonstrative either of the critic’s total ignorance of the subject dealt with, or else of his reckless disingenuousness, that it is hard . to understand how; it could possibly impose upon a single person of ordinary intelligence. For instance, it is stated with amusing confidence that whereas a surplus of £77,769 was announced as the result of the previous financial year (1888-9), the first (June) quarter of the succeeding year showed the receipts to be only £796,107 and the expenditure £1,144,440, leaving a balance of £375,333 to the bad, which it is contended proved that “ liabilities to the amount (approximate) of £375,333 were not brought to charge within the financial year in which the surplus of £77,769 was announced; otherwise the surplus could not have been possible.” Now it is really difficult to understand what sort of mental capacity could be possessed by a writer who could pen so manifestly nonsensical a passage as this. Everybody who has even the most rudimentary acquaintance with New Zealand finance knows perfectly well—for it has been several times fully explained by successive Colonial Treasurers, by Sir Julius Vogel as well as by Sir Harry Atkinson—that owing to the system by which the New Zealand accounts are kept for the sake of simplicity and economy of working, the last quarter’s returns of each year include approximately months’ revenue, by the first quarter’s only 21 months’ revenue. The reason why this is so, and the method pursued, have both been most clearly explained over and over again, and are well understood by everybody who takes an interest in such questions. Certainly every public man who is capable of pronouncing a competent opinion on financial matters is well

aware of the practice. Therefore the first quarter’s revenue in each year is not a full quarter’s receipts, but only 2i months’ return. This, on the figures shown, represents a difference of over £140,000. But that is not all. Another fact, which is equally familiar to every well-informed person, is that the interest on the public debt of the Colony is paid half-yearly, and that the bulk of one half-year’s interest comes in for payment during the first quarter of the year, in the month of May This alone swells that quarter’s disbursements by some £700,000 or £BOO,OOO. Thus, so far from the instance quoted being evidence of liabilities being held over from the preceding quarters, and of a bad state of things generally, it shows, on the contrary, that with only months’ receipts and a full half years’s expenditure to meet in the biggest item of all, that particular quarter instead of being (apparently) half a million to the bad (which it might well have been and yet have been a very fair first quarter)' was only (on paper) £375,333, nominally on the wrong side. And as some £140,000 of the next quarter’s revenue (to say nothing of propertytax) strictly belonged to the first quarter, and £350,000 to £400,000 of the first quarter's expenditure belonged, as we have shown, to the second quarter, the figures adversely quoted really prove there to have been a large balance to the good. The leader of the Opposition party may well exclaim to this clever critic, as did an ancient king to the prophet whom he had specially retained for maledictory purposes :—“What has thou done unto me ? I took thee to curse mine enemies and, behold, thou hast blessed them altogether ! ”, If more proof were needed of the strange ignorance or grave disingenu ousnesa of the criticisms to which we have referred it is io bo found in a very amusing form. A confident prediction is hazarded that “ the first Government Bill of the session will bean Imprest Supply Bill for a pretty stiff sum,” and this is treated as finally demolishing the alleged surplus. Surely this most comic argument (!) must be put forward as a joke? It is a very poor joke no doubt, but no rational person could offer it in serious earnest. Everybody knows that Imprest Supply Bills have nothing what ever to do with the question of a sur plus or a deficit. Every educated person knows that the Appropriation Act of each session expires three months after the close of each financial year, and that the next Appropriation Act is never passed until the end of the session, so that during the interval between the two Acts there exists no authority whatever under which a single penny could be paid except what is given by Imprest. It does not matter in that connection whether there be a surplus of two millions or a deficiency. The Controller-General cannot sanction the payment of a farthing without an Imprest Bill being passed,after one Ap propriation Act has expired and before another comes into force. During the interim the successive Imptest Acts constitute the sole authority on which public money can be disbursed. They have to be passed just the same whether there be a deficiency or a surplus in the revenue. A reference which has been made to the issue of what are called in this Colony “Deficiency Bills ” is similarly irrele vant. There is no connection whatsoever between the two things. It has further been argued in various quarters that the proceeds of the socalled “ Primage ” duty ought not to be included in the surplus, because this duty was levied to pay off a debt. The same point was raised last year, and we then conclusively demonstrated its fallacy. The Primage Duty forms part of the revenue raised in excess of the requirements for the year’s current expenditure,and therefore unquestionably constitutes part of a legitimate surplus. Moreover, it has not been appropriated by Parliament, and could be voted away next session for roads or schools, if the House pleased. So that quibble is easily disposed of. There is fortunately one good end which such nonsensical criticisms as those we have been noticing may s rve. It is their only use, and that quite an unintentional one. By the utter shallowness and absurdity of these attempted depreciations of the Colony’s financial position, they aid in bringing into still greater prominence the soundness of that position and the vast improvement in this respect which has been effected by the Ministry now in office.