“REFORM” FINANCE

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVII, Issue 8340, 29 January 1913, Page 6

“REFORM” FINANCE

On Saturday last we offered some comment upon the particulars given in tho “ Gazette ” of the Consolidated Fund revenue and expenditure for the last quarters of 1912 and 1911 respectively. Wo had to confess inability to discover any evidence of that wonderful economy and improvement in financial matters that had been promised with such turgid pomposity by the self-styled reformers. On the contrary, the whole position, as we clearly demonstrated, really shows tho quarter under Mr Allen’s management to compare very unfavourably with tho corresponding xieriod when Sir Joseph Ward was in charge of tho Ministry of Finance. Departmental expenditure was going to be marvellously reduced under the new regime, for it was in that direction that tho Liberals were specially declared to have indulged in “reckless waste and jobbery.” Yet, as we showed on (Saturday, this outlay has increased, in several instances, out of all proportion to the advance in revenue van advance to be looked for in a growing, prosperous country quite independently of the differences between Liberal administration and that of selfstyled “Reform”). In particular, wo mentioned, among other things, that the post, and telegraph revenue for tho 1912 quarter was loss than that for 1911 and the oxx>sndituro more. It will have been observed from a Press Association telegram appearing in yesterday’s “ Times” that the PostmasterGeneral thought it advisable to submit some explanation to a Christchurch reporter. Mr Rhodes says that the changed relation of revenue to expenditure in his department is accounted for by the fact that the telephone exchange subscriptions showed a drop of nearly £34,000, due to these payments being now collected quarterly instead of half-yearly, as before. This is certainly a very ‘plausible explanation, but it does not explain enough. The actual figures suggest that there is still a considerable discrepancy to explain away. Hero is the position at a glance:

It is surely taking public simplicity too much for granted to say that a drop of “ nearly £34,000” in telephone subscriptions accounts for a total comparative difference (less revenue and more expense) amounting to more than three times that sum. Also, it seems very much like an attempted imposition to have such a lame and impotent “ explanation ” telegraphed throughout the Dominion stamped with all the official authority of the Postmaster-General. Now, wo have not suggested, nor do wo now desire to infer, that anything in the figures we have quoted from the “ Gazette ” necessarily reflects upon Mr Rhodes’s administration of his department. Quito satisfactory reasons may exist for a heavy rise in expenditure and a moderate falling-off in revenue. But we do emphatically affirm that nothing in this return shows the slightest indication of fulfilment of promise. “ Where,” we asked three days ago, “ are the evidences of Reform?” After the PostmasterGeneral’s “ explanation ” concerning his particular share in the whole, we are constrained to once more ask “ Where?” Allowing Mr Rhodes all that he claims in regard to the £34,000, he is still left with £69,114 to be accounted for—or a net showing of £23,038 a month to the bad as compared with the corresponding quarter under the management of Sir Joseph Ward.

Increase or 1911. 1912. decrease. £ £ £ Revenue 311,263, 293,409 — 17,854 Expenditure 178,495 263,755 + 85,250 Excess of rev. ... £ 132,768 £29,554 Total difference £103,114