CORPORATION SINKING FUNDS.

Evening Star, Issue 14214, 13 November 1909, Page 5

CORPORATION SINKING FUNDS.

QUESTION OF CONTROL. DISCUSSION IX PARLIAMENT'. [From Oun Parliamentary Reporter.] WELLINGTON, November 15. A general discussion sprang up in the House yesterday afternoon on the section (No. 25l of the Local Bodies’ Loans Amendment Act of last year providing that the Public Trustee is to be solo commissioner of sinking funds of loans raised under tiie Local Bodies’ Loans Act. It arose out of the presentation by Mr Davey (chairman) of the report of the Public Petitions Committee on the petition of the Dunedin City Council, who asked either that the section he repealed or that they he exempt Irom its operation. The Committee's report was unfavorable, and Mr Davev moved that it lie on the table.

Mr fsidey protested against both the finding of the Committee and the working of the section complained of. He pointed to the excellent result* secured under the Dunedin Corporation's present Sinking Fund Commissioners, consisting of three local gentlemen. The Government were doing a manifest injustice to corporation? \\ ho w eie ;ihlo to tlioir own nfTrurs, and who wore able independently to raise loans on as good terms as if (her had the Government behind them. The’' Dunedin Corporation wanted the section repealed, or themselves exempted from its operation! I ho Dunedin City members had protested against its passage last year. He moved a.s an amendment that the petition be referred to the Government. Mr J. Allen seconded (he amendment, saying that the section had been passed against the better judgment of the House. It was a. bad principle to compel local bodies to invest their sinking funds in Government- securities. Local bodies -should he allowed to invest their funds as they thought fit. Mr G. M. Thomson supported the amendment saying that no Government oliiciai could do as good work .in this respect as the -Sinking Fund Commissioners. Messrs Glover and Baume. on behalf of Ibe Auckland Corporation, .supported Mr Suley s amendment.

Ml' Massey suggested that- when the House dealt with a Loral Bodies Hill thk session the danse objected to (should he repealed. M here there was no Slate guartmlee local bodies should be allowed (o use the sinking funds to their own advantage.

suggested that Mi Sidey should introduce a Bill if be wanted the section repealed. He thought the House had done wisely in passing it. nminbrf'hill l^'' I,:UU '° ' ro " ld a P rivatc

Ihc Hpn. IL JPKcnzic said that private members Bills sometimes passed }jo maintained that the provision was'a -ood aitsxEr' Mkk ,vou|<i

Mr M‘Lare„'thought, (he question at issue aas whether (here should be lor-d mo')" 10 "? 01 ' ,101 .- Tlit> “Him, "'as The most, undemocratic and conservative proviwon possible. 1

Mr lorries Raid that the Minister of PnliUc Works had declared that the wlieu was a. safeguard a-,-must local bodies !\I tr 1,1 ! ilt,lr -docks, l,uf lie Heines) wished to point uni- that (lie Government did precisely the same, thiniMoneys borrowed for public; works were invested in the Advances to Settlers Office.— (Laughter.) If the Government did thA wi hj their own fund,;:, what would they do wPh sinking fund* outlasted to them? -ir Davey said that, ho could not accent uio amendment. ihe ('onimittee had eonndered the matter purely as a. question of policy, .the whole thing had been threshed out lust session. It had been known that sinking fund commissioners had made use . H'oir position to advance loans to their inends He did not think it advisable for Jocal bodies to lend to other authorities in the same district. Them had been a case m Wellington where the city lent £70.000 to the Karon Borough Council. It was not good finance. He considered it was the duly of local authorities to assist the Goyoinnient. for the one and a-qnarter million of sinking funds would he a help to the Government, and in ret urn Hie local laidics would get good security and a regular payment of interest at, the fixed date without any cast of collection.

Messrs l.auionson and Mil strongly opposed the amendment, tbo latter member pointing out instance after instance in which Parliament, not, lining able, to trust hx-al bodies, had had to pass legislation curtailing their ptnveis in manv diietlions, such a- puiilir health. ividth of btrecLi. etc.

All Guthrie defended lo,al bodies from Ihe imputation that they could not. he trustor!. He favored bodirti liaviim roidroJ <if their own sinking funds. Ihe Hon. 1. A Jhinvan (ondetnned the mot hud by which this question had been reopened. Petitions of this nature were us undeniiahl" as those asking for router roads, and bridge,-. M,- Sidev should have brought in a. local Bill,

Mr Sidev (whose seat is alongside Mr Duncan) made some inaudible inteijet-1 >on about, what transpired at the Committee proceedings. Mr Duncan: Oh. yes. \V m made a speech to the Committee that was worlhy of the occasion. Wc have not heard the like for a long time.-—tT.aughier.) Mr S!idey'.«_ amendment was carried by 54 votes to 25, and the lepoit. as anu-nded v as fabled.