BANK DIRECTOR

Greymouth Evening Star, 23 November 1945, Page 3

BANK DIRECTOR

ATTACK BY COUNCILLOR. WELLINGTON, November 22. The opinion that Mr. S’tronach Paterson should be asked to resign from the Directorate of the Bank of New Zealand was forcibly expressed by Hon. W. Grounds during the second reading debate on the Bank of New Zealand Bill in the Legislative Council this afternoon. Mr. Grounds said that as long as Mr. Paterson remained in office he would be a national menace, in view of the fact that he was entirely opposed to the procedure which had been followed. Mr. Grounds made no objection to the retention of the other directors, and he paid a tribute to their ability and capacity for the job. He suggested, however, that Mr. Paterson’s case was quite different. “Mr. Paterson has emerged,” said Mr. Grounds, “as a protagonist for the shareholders against the Government proposals, and in doing so; he has indicated his intention of retiring from his position when this war against the Government proposals was ended. The shareholders have no voice in the management of the bank at the present time. Consequently, he is there without any shareholder, and we are justified in asking what are his credentials for continuance. It is true that he has been prominent in connection with the Chamber of Commerce propaganda. That does not call, as far as my'judgment goes, for any very great qualifications. Neither does it infer the possession of outstanding ability. He has no banking directorship experience. That is clear. Has he displayed capacity in busineses organisation? I don’t know who can answer that.” Hon. W. Perry: Well, why ask it? Mr. Grounds said that there was no shadow of justification for Mr. Paterson’s continuance in office. None outside a little group with whom he had been associated would have any confidence in him. Later in the debate Hon. W. Perry said that he regretted very much Mr. Grounds’ attack against Mr. Paterson. There had been a lot of adverse comment upon the action of the directors in retaining their directorships after the statement made by them at the last annual meeting of the bank. Some of that comment might have been fair, but most of it was grossly unfair. “It seems to me it is most difficult for a great many people to appreciate the fact that there are some 'persons like Mr. Donnelly, Mr. Paterson and others, who place their country above their personal inclinations and personal convenience.” Hon. T. O. Bishop (Wellington) said Mr. Grounds’ remarks savoured of personal animosity. Mr. Paterson was entitled to his point of view, and should not have been subjected to such an attack.