USE OF STATE ART UNION FUNDS BY MAYORS FOR RELIEF

Wanganui Chronicle, 7 September 1950, Page 5

USE OF STATE ART UNION FUNDS BY MAYORS FOR RELIEF

Debate In The House Suggests That They Be Subject To Audit

PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS, Last Night (P.A.)—The Minister of Internal Affairs (Mr. Bodkin) in the House of Representatives today, answering Mr. McCombs (Opp., Lyttelton), said a complete review of the whole administration and allocation of art union funds was now under way. When the information is to hand the situation will be reviewed in the light of the information revealed and it will then be possible to make a pronouncement on the subject.

Mr. McCombs had asked what reductions were to be made in art union grants to mayors’ funds, and what alternative use would be made of the funds diverted. Mr. McCombs, discussing the replj, 1 said it now appeared that the Minister ol Internal Affairs wanted to get his hands on those mayors' funds. The onlv inference to be taken from the letter which had been circulated to all mayors was that their discretion in handling funds was to be taken away from them. He wanted to make the strongest possible protest against any interference with the discretionary powers that mayors had in the disbursement of relief funds. Mr. Bodkin said that the change of policy in regard to the administration and allocation of art union funds and mayors’ funds arose out of an application from the chairman of a rural town board asking for permission to divert a sum of £640 into a building fund. The Minister said his opinion was that trie building should be provided by th e Town Board, and that charity money should not be used for such a purpose. He had found, on investigation, that funds were not subject to Government audit and in some cases no audit had been held at all. Mr. Bodkin said that in some cases substantial reserves had been established and the money had been diverted to work which, in his opinion, Should be carried out at the ratepayers' expense from ordinary funds. Some mayors had not replied to his request for information concerning the funds at their disposal, but when he had all the information that he required he would propose to make certain alterations to the present system. He was going to insist that all money b e subject to Government audit. “It should not be left to a mayor to distribute largesse, and In some cases I have a shrewd suspicion that is what has happened," said Mr. Bodkin. He considered that mayors’ funds should be administered by some form of committee. There seemed to him to be a weaxness in the system of allocating funds, in that some local bodies received more in comparison with Olliers. Mr. Carr '(Opp., Timaru) said tha'. some people would be gratified with the steps the Minister was proposing to take. There were cases of largesse being distributed rather than social amenities to those who required such help. Mr. Parry (Opp., Arch Hill) said that money from art unions was paid into mayors’ funds and then utilised for distress purposes. It was very handy for a mayor to have such a

fund so as to give immediate assistance to people. He did npt believe that mayors would utilise any of Ihe money unless it was for relief purposes. Mr. Smith (Govt., Hobson) said he had brought the matter to the notice of the Minister. Money was paid Into mayors’ relief funds irrespective of whether the funds were used. The particular amount in question (£640) had been built up entirely by money paid Into a distress fund. Surely local bodies should have to account for such funds. It was their elementary duty to see that whatever money was voted for any particular purpose was needed and applied. The Minister had taken a stand which was long overdue, and whatever hp decided would not that any case of genuine distress would not be given relief. Mr. Armstrong (Opp., Naoier) said that Mr. Smith had been “snooping” into the internal affairs of some local body, ana reporting on it to the Minister. Mr. Bodkin: At the request of the local body. Mr. Armstrong said Mr. Smith’s attitude was hardly right. In the case of Napier every penny received was well spent on cases of real need. Mr. Harker (Govt., Hawke’s Bay) said it was astonishing that Mr. Armstrong should have attacked Mr Smith for conveying a message from a local body to the Minister of Internal Affairs. Mr MacFarlane (Opp., Christchurch Central) said there was no loose control in Chistchurch of funds received from art union proceeds. All expenditure was controlled through the City Treasury, but if there were cases elsewhere where that was not done the Minister had some justification for requiring the expenditure of these funds be made through proper administrative channels. He hoped, however, there was no suggestion that the department should check actual payments to individuals. Mr. Bodkin: I want to get it as far as possible on a population basis. That is all. Mr. Hackett (Opp., Grey Lynn) said mayors surely had responsibility so far as the disbursement of funds was concerned, but they had no right to apply for more funds when money was not needed, or to convert or use funds for other purposes. “Because we find some mayors of country towns betraying a trust, for goodness sake do not let us penalise others,” said Mr. Hackett. Mr. Neafe (Govt., Nelson) said that if the discussion did nothing else it should reveal whether some local bodies were receiving too much and others too little.