PUBLIC ACCOUNTS.

Hokitika Guardian, 6 June 1925, Page 3

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS. EUR ON EO US DE DU CTIO XS. STATEMEN T RY PREMIER. i I’m- Envour of Government.) WELDINGTOX. June 5. The Prime .Minister (Hon. J. G. Louie-;), when approached to-day with regard to newspaper criticism in eon* nett ion with the public accounts, stated that lie had noticed that many nowsI:i 1 ers in reviewing the recently gazetted public accounts for the last finamial year seemed to have overlooked the note which appears on the first page and is repeated on the bottom of everv following page to the effect that the crediis in aid. nr in reduction <f ex] enditure, ur- i co lormitv with a recent ameminmiil to the Public Revenues Act. and ai" now shown separately as re: eipts inste.'ul of being deducted from the expemlitme as formerly. “This means.” said .Mr Coates, “that in ilv- accounts, as primed, tho gross expenditure is shown fur 102-1-25 and the net expenditure for 1025-21. To obtain a '.emparison between the two years, the crediis in reduction and credit- in aid shown on the rn'oipls side should first of all he deducted from tin- relative items of expenditure for PJ2-I-25. Through over-look-ing ibis important point many erroneous deductions and ((inclusion- have been drawn from the published accounts

by various newspapers. •“A recent leading article in the “Lyt tellon Times", said the Prime .Minis-

ter. “is a (use in point. It is slated there that the expenditure exceeds the revenue by about £51.500,1 Oil. Credits in aid and reduction to the amount of approximately £1.000.000 must, however. he first deducted from, the gross expenditure in order to show ihe true result : that is a surplus in round ligiin - of .C1.2-II.OtKI. Attention is draw n to tlie apparent huge'increase in (C-lil charges, hut a- a matter of fuel the net charge on the Consolidated Fund under ibis heading shows a small decrease of about £20.000. The reference to the increase in expenditure over the previous year is also mistaken for (he same reason, the increase over 11)2.1-21 being £1.250.000 and not £(>.(!! .'0.0’.10 a- stated.

‘•ft may lie mentioned a comparative table of expenditure was published on the last page of the primed ac-

counts referred to. “The ‘Timara Herald in a leading article on the Ist. inst..” continue!! Mr Coates, ‘Vritirising the public statement issued by me when assuming office on Saturday la-1, lias also drawn incorrect conclusions from the figures published with regard to the financial results of the Railways and Dost r.ud Telegraph Departments. The “I[erald has lomplelely ignored the credits “in aid", shown under 111 • In :nl i ii - of receipts. Apart from the matter of i .'conciliation of the Railway Returns with the Treasury \cm unis liii- has thrown the writer of the article out verv materially in

arriving at. the nett revenue and it only Hoods to he mentioned that the recoveries, i.o. credits in aid. lasi year l i the lailwav working expeii-es amounted Li £51!).721. To see the extent l i which the '‘.Herald" is wrong in ii- figures the true position of the 1 : 111 ■ , f ihe railway revenue ami expenditure with which the Treasury figures will be romnoiled. In the form D-2 ret urn No 2 is as follows : Revenue Dil l-25 ‘•7.112.521. I !>2:?-2 I £. ,!H 1.211 : working o:;nei:-es 1021-25 1)5,515. I I<l.

1923-2 1 £I. ll!o.7iili. giving a net profit on the working of 1924-25. /J I ..1(17.108 1923-21 £1 .■ISII. I 45. It "ill he seen the-otoi-o. tint tin- m-i pr.ilit oil t!ie working oi the llaihi.iv Department in 1 1 1 2A was only less than the previous year by £13.337 and when it is rememhored that during the last, tin ami til ye r tin re was a .strike in the railway -ervicc. "Id'll almost* I'.iititilct-cly 's!o|')|"'*l r'ue Ihn-.- of r.-ienue for eight dav-. "ki.e the .dunes and "ages of a large proportion of the -talf- who were not out on strike still ro'|iiircd to ha paid, although they were not doing any reveiim 1 producing work and having regard also to the far! that the d*i arf ment's passenger traflia during the two periods that are the heaviest passenger producing revenue ix*noils of the year was seriously interfere.! with, firstly by the strike (during the Faster period) and <e< - oinlly hv the epidemie (during the Xmas and tin* Xew Year period) the conclusion can lie none other than that the railway results as compared with the previous year, are very snlisf < tory. On the expenditure side, the position is that, apart from the natural increase in expenditure consequent on the crdinr-rv scale increases in salary aial wages to the staff, the year’s figures iiiclm’i * tlx* i-onsideralilt* expemiiture following on tin* introduction of the -IS hour week. 1 his i- a matlei that, will ultimately adjust itself, hut t’•,. ecci'-.omies that are to lw* obtained from the increase in heurs, though cert' in in tin* long run. could not he immediately secured extent by ii sudden reduction cl the staff. Ibis would have had a very disturbing effect | :m J have also entailed considerable j hardship. It was announced at the i time that this procedure would not he re-sorted to and it. "as clearly understood that the decision would involve the Department in a temporary inllatioii of expenditure, pending the gradual rJiscrptir-n of the surplus staff. The ; wisdom of this p-ili y. at the time, was umiueslirned and was indeed, having regard to the circumstances as then j existing. uii(|Uesiionahle. In addition j there has to he ccnsitlered the very eonI siderable increase in expenditure that ! furs arisen out of the working of the I (Mira tunnel section, probably the most

expensive section ot line from an opera! iug point of view that lias yet come int i the hands ot the Railway Dopai t-OK-m -. ids , there is to he taken into consideration the sum of £80.1)00. part , : f the Government contribution to the railwav .superannuation fund., whim the previous year was paid out of Coi-.-olidated Fund, hut which in the von r under imti-e was charged

railway expenditure. •-So far as the Rost and Telegranl Department is concerned.” said the Premier, “the figures quoted by the “Herald” for 19*23-21 are correct, the revenue exceeding the expenditme by {.’503.288. in spite of the fact that Id postage and 9d telegrams to the public which t considered at the time was warranted and which results hate proved was a stop in the right direction. The figures quoted by the “Tima>„ Herald” for 1924-25 are. however, as in the case of the Railway Department. entirely misleading, perhaps, not deliberately, hut as a result nl a misunderstanding in regard to the Ruhlic Accounts ns published ill the New /.e i land Gazette fer the 28th. ultimo. Had the writer of tin* editorial carefully read ithe explanatory note on the cover of the statement of accounts ho would have seen that credits “in aid” I had not I con deducted from the expenditure as was formerly done. If reference is made to page 1044 it will he noticed that the sum .of £.190.199. a fairly substantial amount, has been altogether overlooked by the “Herald . Therefore, the latter’s quotation “19242o revenue £2.706,882. expenditure £3.009.034. a deficiency of close on £300.000,” should read “revenue f'-2 410.534, excess of revenue over expenditure £293.44-”. instead of a deficiency of £900,000 MlreH I" 5 'TTornltV' -