The Temuka Leader THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 1887. THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1655, 3 November 1887, Page 2

The Temuka Leader THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 1887. THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT.

Major Atkinson is clever. His Financial Statement betrays cleverness born of an intention to deceive. He proposes to effect retrenchment to the tune of £300,000 ; to borrow another million of money at once, and to increase the Property Tax to one penny in the £. He will not be able to retrench to the extent of _ £BOO,OOO this year, and he is very reticent as to the saving at all. A lump sum will be taken from each department, and the Minister in charge of the departments must devise the means by which he shall bring expenditure within his means. This is (delusive. But even this reduction is not to be done this year. All the saving that can be J effected this year is only £71,000. He will effect a saving of £71,000 this year, and, if he is allowed to remain in office, and a million loan is given him, he will effect a saving of £300,000 next year. Soft-headed electors sent to Parliament many soft-headed representatives last election but though a great many of them are supremely unfit to grapple with the questions before the country at present we cannot believe that a majority of them will be found so gullible as to be deceived by such vague promises as are contained in the Financial Statement, We have not in this issue space to discuss the subject fully, but there is one point to which we shall refer. The Financial proposals of the Stout-Yogel Government involved a saving of £85,000. Sir Robert Stout defied them to prove that this saving had not been effected. In addition to this, they proposed to reduce salaries by from 2£ to per cent., which would have effected a further saving of £20,000. Their proposal to reduce salaries in this way was denounced as taxing the Civil servants, and they were defeated on it. Thus if the late Government had been allowed to carry out their proposals the saving they would have effected this year would amount to £105,000. Now, what do we get instead ? We get a promised saving of £71,000, with the cost of a general election and a double session to provide for. It has been asserted in Parliament that the dissolution has cost the country £60,000, and thus almost all Major Atkinson’s savings have been swallowed up. He has put the country to an expense of £60,000 by forcing on a dissolution, and he can save only £71,000. Ihe country thus gains £II,OOO, but it loses the £105,000 which would have been saved had the Stout-Yogel Government been allowed to remain in office. By the whole transaction the taxpayers lose about £94,000 ; the Property Tax is to be increased all round to one penny in the £; no local industries are to be encouraged; the school age is to be raised to six years, and the capitation grant reduced to £3 15s; the subsidies to local bodies are to be reduced, and the cost of Charitable Aid thrown on local rates —and, to crown them all, we are to have another loan of £1,000,000. We have already said that we did not believe Major Atkinson meantthat the Government should live, and we think we were right,