WAIROA COUNTY FINANCE

Greymouth Evening Star, 10 March 1933, Page 2

WAIROA COUNTY FINANCE

MINISTER’S EXPLANATION

[PER PRESS ASSOCIATION.]

WELLINGTON, March 10.

A denial that he was adopting an unsympathetic attitude towards the difficulties of the Wairoa County Council, in meeting its financial obligations, was made by the Minister of Internal Affairs, in the House of Representatives, this morning. He referred to a question asked earlier, concerning a newspaper report, which implied that the Government had threatened to put a receiver in charge of the County finances.

Mr Young said that the report t gave an entirely wrong impression, and it was evident that either the County Council did not appreciate the facts, or that the report was incorrect. The Council was in default in respect of interest payments to the Treasury, the State Advances Office, and the Public Trustee. So far as he knew, the other creditors had been paid. The Minister detailed amounts totalling some £7300 owing by the County to these Departments. At March 31 last, he added, the County had a bank overdraft of £725, while unpaid accounts totalled £2400, and a further £9OO was involved in respect of heavy traffic fees. The three Departments had complained of the situation, and he had written to the Council in terms to which no exception could be taken. It had been stated that the Council would not have taken so much notice of the letter, had it come from the head of the Department, but coming from the Minister, who ought to know something of the worries of finance, it was an unthinkable action.

Mr Young said that he had as much experience in local body affairs as anyone else, and he recently demonstrated his sympathy with local body difficulties in the action he had taken with reference to the Thames Harbour Board and the Matakaoa County Council. In his letter to the Council, lie had merely asked what steps it proposed to take to meet the position, and ho had made it clear that the alternative action of appointing a Commissioner had been deferred, pending some indication by the Council as to its intentions. The Council did not seem to realise the distinction between an agreement to appoint a Commissioner, and the appointment of a. receiver. A Commissioner would work in co-operation with the Council, whose functions would continue, the Commissioner merely acting in an advisory capacity, and not taking over the Council’s responsibilities. On the other hand, if a. Commissioner were not. appointed, the bondholders might go to the Supreme Court and secure the appointment of a receiver, which would lie verj' much worse for the County. Under a Commissioner the bondholders received any surplus from the rates entitled to be levied, but a. receiver superseded the Council, and the revenue from rates would be applied solely to pay the bondholders, without regard to administration. Ju these circumstances, it was difficult to understand the County’s attitude. The letter had been written in the interests of the County. It could not be overlooked that the Council had taken no steps whatever to levy special rates. However, if the County would co-operate with Um Department, the latter would do all it could to assist.