The Press Tuesday, November 4, 1924. The Public Trust Office.

Press, Volume LX, Issue 18221, 4 November 1924, Page 8

The Press Tuesday, November 4, 1924. The Public Trust Office.

Although no reply has been made to the articles criticising the Public Trust i Office which we printed recently, we do not suppose that the Public Trustee feels indisposed to make any answer, I and perhaps a reply will eonijc along :in due course. In the meantime we ■■ have had evidence that the articles have attracted a good deal of attention, and the subject will be taken up in Parliament next session. The Wellington "Dominion" prints a letter from a correspondent, who, after quoting passages from our leading articles on the subject and from the article by "Jurist" which we printed as a supplement to the articles by the Kev. Father Dowling, makes a suggestion which seems to us to be worthy of adoption. He says: If a paper of the standing of "The Press," a paper which is understood to be a strong supporter of the present Government, gives publicity to such strong expressions, it must have done so on reliable data, and surely some notice and action will bo taken therewith, and I venture to think that, as the matter is so important and affects so large a portion of the community, the public is entitled to, and will not be satisfied with less than, the appointment of another Boyal Commission to enquire into the policy, system, administration, and working of the Public Trust Office, with the fullest powers to call evidence, books, papers, documents, etc., and to report to the next sitting of Parliament. Boyal Commissions have been appointed often enough to investigate subjects of less importance than this, for it "is surely a grave matter that a Public Department established merely to give perfect security to testators at a low economic cost should have developed into a bureaucratic instrument for making huge profits out of its trust with the object of its officials and its powers. The Office, as was made clear in the articles by the Eev. Father Dowling and "Jurist," makes its profits by taking for its own purposes about 20 per cent, of the revenue which is earned by the estates and moneys, public and private, entrusted to its care cither voluntarily or automatically under the Statutes. These profits are so great that the Office is able to render services to its clients either free of cost or at an uneconomic rate, to enlarge its staffs, to multiply its buildings, and to build up large reserves. All this is paid for, as we have said, by the beneficiaries and by the general taxpayer. Very few of the beneficiaries of estates in the Trustee's hands have had any idea that so exorbitant a toll as 20 per cent, is levied by the Office upon their incomes; nor have the taxpayers realised that the earnings of the public moneys (sinking funds, superannuation funds, «tc.) committed to the custody of the Office have been drawn upon to furnish the Offlee with the financial means of extending its glory and show. It may be said that, if the private patrons of the Office choose to pay for the services rendered to them the rapacious charges made—and made, marvellous to say, under the pretence that these services are almost given away—it is nobody's affair but that of these innocent people themselves. But other interests besides those of the private customers of the Office are concerned. It is unquestionably contrary to public policy that a State Department should be allowed to adopt this means of getting into u financial position which enables it to compete unfairly with private firms and institutions engaged in trust and investment business. We could understand the Government's tolerance of the Office's methods if thp Office were admittedly an instrument for the drawing of all this business into the hands of the State. But that was not tho I intention with which the Ofliee was established, and the Government* is certainly not in favour of "nationalisation" in this matter. The fact is, that neither the Government nor the Legislature has realised the facts of the case. Then there is the public interest in keeping the public services within bounds, and this interest is ignored by the Public Trust Office and by the Legislature which has carelessly given the Office bureaucrats enormous powers and a free hand. Nothing, of course, could be done by Parliament at the fag end of a long and wearisome session, but there is no reason why the Government should not have an investigation in the recess, and our articles have contained reasons enough why it should.