QUESTION RAISED.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIV, Issue 283, 30 November 1933, Page 10

QUESTION RAISED.

EXPENSES OF WITNESSES.; INDEMNIFICATION ARRANGED. (By Telegraph.—Parliamentary Heporter.) WELLINGTON, this day. Payment of the expenses of witnesses appearing before the select committee which is hearing evidence on the Waikato Water Supply Company Limited Empowering Bill was the subject of a brisk exchange yesterday afternoon.

In reply to a point raised at an earlier stage by Mr. P. Fraser, M.P. for Wellington Central, Mr. E. H. Northcroft, who represents the promoters of the legislation, stated that in the past local bodies had experienced difficulty in recovering expenses involved in the tendering of evidence on the water supply question. On the present occasion the company had given an undertaking that if the local bories' committee, which was appearing,. encountered difficulty over the recovery of expenses, it would indemnify- the emembers against those expenses. Doubts had been raised as to whether local authorities, under the Municipal Corporations Act, were entitled to expend money either in support of or opposition to any legislation; and on past occasions there, had been trouble with the Government in arranging an adjustment. •" •..><

"Expenses Paid by Company." Later in the hearing, when Mr. H. ;IV. W. Meikle, chairman of the North Shore Water Board, was testifying, ho was asked by Mr. Eraser whether lie considered it was proper for representatives of local bodies to come to give evidence in the pay of the company. The Chairman, Mr. S. G. Smith: That is. not correct. They are not in the pay of the company. Mr. Fraser.: Their expenses are being paid 'by the company. I want to get at the bottom of how unknown English financiers can get local • bodies in New Zealand to come here and give evidence. (To Mr. Meikla).: You think it is proper to accept payment of expenses from somebody you don't know? Mr. Meikle: I would not say that. Mr. Gray guaranteed the expenses. Mr. Fraser: You don't know who is paying your expenses. This is the first time in my 15 years' experience of Parliament that I have heard of a "position such as" this. Do you think it is proper?

Mr. Meikle: I don't take exception to it at all.

Mr. H. N. Rogerson, representing'the local bodies' committee, said that indemnification of expenses was a wellrecognised principle. The Auckland ' Transport Board, when 'its legislation was before the House, had paid the cost of. counsels' expenses on. both sides. Provision for. it was' made in the bill, , and it was passed by the House. Mi\ Fraser: But we knew who the Transport Board was. Mr. Rogerson: We know who this company is. ' j