PUBLIC TRUST.

Press, Volume LX, Issue 18237, 22 November 1924, Page 14

PUBLIC TRUST.

CRITICISM BY AUCKLAND "STAR." ' The articles on the Public Trust Office, which have appeared recently in -"'The Press/' have led to the following editorial comment by the "Auckland Star." We commented recently on a valuable series of articles on the h'storj and methods of. the Public Trust Office contributed to the "Christehurch Press" and the "Otago"Daily Times by the Rev. Father Bowling, who had taken this subject as a thesis iu economics. The most important feature of the criticism, in 'the articles was the contention that" the Public Trust Office was making excessive profits at the expense of beneficiaries. The Common Fund administered by the office is composed of estates and public funds placed under the Public Trustee's control, and Father Bowline's criticism wr.s chiefly concerned with the way in which this was managed." His conclusions were strongly supported by "The Press, which also complained of the way in which the Public Trust Office went on adding to its powers by new-legislation, and Parliament permitted it to. do so. Last week the Prime Minister, who is the Minister responsible for the Office, issued long reply to those criticisms, and we may assume that this reply was compiled by the Public Trustee himself. This statement is more general than particular. If emphasises the advantages of 'the Common Fund, which «ro part of the advantages of the Public Trust system, ,'ind no one questions that they are. very valuable. It denies that the percentage of the Common Good Fund interest retained bv the Office is excessive, and says that Father Bowline' has overlooked certain important facts. It is contended that the Public Trustee is entitled to build, up reserves. Some figures of interest earnings and payments are given'.'" It seems to_us thai this statement is inadequate, and it has satisfied neither J'ntlier Bowling 1 The ? * nor tHe- £ 'O'tr: 0~0 T>aily Times." Father Bowling replying in "The Press," sticks to his opinion that the Department retains too much money, arid suggests that to' prove the accuracy or inaccuracy of his statements the Department should compile a table, covering several years, showing (a,) Amount at credit of estates in Common Fund. (1>) Amount at credit of Government funds in the Common Good._ (c) Total interest 'earned by the Common Fund. (d> Interest credited to estates in the Common Fund.;- .(e) Interest credited to ■ Government funds in the Common Fund." (f) Interest retained by the Bepartment. This information, he says, cannot be obtained with any high degree ;of accuracv from the reports and accounts published by the Bepartment. This reasonable suggestion is made also by both the newspapers which published the original articles. The miatter is too; serious to be disposed of by generalities. No one questions that the Public Trust Office does a great public service, but these criti- ■ cisms suggest that its methods could be -.improved. . It has_ become such ai large and powerful" institution that errors in its policy may have far-reach-ing consequences.' ' Tliere is Always a danger' of, sueh an,. institution seeking too much power. Fuller information, about its working than is now available should be supplied, and this public left to- judge whether it is conducted on the best possible lines.