DIFFICULTY OF WAIROA

Taranaki Daily News, 11 March 1933, Page 7

DIFFICULTY OF WAIROA

LACK OF SYMPATHY DENIED EXPLANATION BY THE MINISTER. ■ WRONG IMPRESSION GAINED. . ATTITUDE OF THE DEPARTMENT. By Telegraph—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 Mr. J. A. Young, Minister of Internal Affairs, in the House of Representatives this morning. He referred to a. question asked earjier concerning a newspaper report which implied that the Government had threatened to put a receiver in charge of the county’s finances. Mr. Young said the report gave an entirely, wrong impression, and it was evident that either the county council did not appreciate the facts or the report was incorrect. The council was in default in respect of interest payments to the Treasury, the State Advances Office find the Public Trustee. As far as he knew othdr 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 £9OOO was involved in respect of heavy / traffic fees. 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 hot have taken so much notice of the tetter had it come'ftom the head of a department, but coming from a Minister, who ought to know something of the worries of finance, it was an unthinkable action.

Mr. Young said that he had 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. LETTER TO COUNCIL. In his letter to the Wairoa Council he had merely asked what steps it proposed to take to meet the position, and he' had made*it clear thdtthe 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 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 wete not appointed the bondholders might go to the. Supreme Court and secure the appointment of a receiver, which would be very much worse for the county. Under a commissioner the bondholders received any surplus from rates entitled to be levied, but a receiver superseded the council ’ and • the revenue from the rates' would be applied solely to pay the bondholders without regard to the administration.' In 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 the department the latter would do all it could to assist. . ■ ' .