PUBLIC TRUST

Hokitika Guardian, 9 September 1926, Page 4

PUBLIC TRUST

THE ANNUAL REPORT. WELLINGTON. Sept. 7. The annual report of the Public Trustee was presented in the House of Representatives to-day by the Hon. Air Nosivorthy, in the absence of Air Coates, who.is in charge of tho Department. The first part of the' report is a .statement by the Minister in charge, who states that tho expenditure has net shown any marked increase. I lie revenue showed a. decrease lor the year of £17.053, which is more than accounted for by tlie substantial concessions mude by way of increased rates of interest and reduced charges. The operations for tho past year have resulted in a net profit of £47,484. But for the concessions, the profits would have exceeded tliost of any previous year in the history of the Office. “It was never intended,” says Mr Coates, “that tlie Office should am a:; large profits from the administration of estates and funds entrusted to it. Whenever these operations have returned :i surplus over the expenditure, and enabled proper provision to he made foi: depreciation and reserves, the estates and funds under administration have been given the benefit of tlie surplus. Between the years 191(5 and 15)20 a bonus was distributed amongst beneficiaries anti the funds administered by the Public Trustee. It is however, considered more satisfactory to grant concessions bv way of increased rates of interest and reduced charges for the services rendered. INVESTMENTS. “A portion of the Office funds invested a number of years ago on long term loans return a low Rite of interest in comparison with both the rates at present returned by the Office investments, and the interest credited on moneys invested in the Common Fund of the Office. However, as these investments fall in, and tlie lunds lororeinvested at higher rates of interest, it will probably bo found possible to grant vet more extensive concessions.” POWERS OF TRUSTEE. In regard to the special powers vested in tho Trustee, Air Coates says: “The object of these powers lias been purely in the interests of the beneficiaries in estates under the control of the Public Trustee. He is a public official whose good conduct is guaranteed by the State, and whose work is subject to public criticism and to special safeguards. For these reasons lie may be granted additional powers, which, of course, it would not he prudent to confer upon trustees in general. These increased powers are i working very satisfactorily, and the effect of them lias been (o free estates in the hands of the Public Trustee from nur'ii expense in applications to the Supreme Court—a relief which has been greatlv appreciated by the beneficiaries. The powers have in no way relaxed the safeguards necessary for the protection ol beneficiaries. “I previously pointed out that under the Public Trust Office Acts beneficiaries who consider themselves Aggrieved, or-are dissatisfied with any action cf the Public Trustee, may, apply to the Supreme Court for redress. Recently, a Judge of the Supreme Court suggested”tliut further discretionary powers might be given to the Public Trustee in exercising certain functions in connexion with the administration of estates, and so reduce the number of ex parte applications which now have to he made to tlie court. It is not proposed, however to make any extension at present in order that the existing powers may he thoroughly tested over a long period.“