Board Divides, 9-4, On Integrity Issue

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31224, 23 November 1966, Page 22

Board Divides, 9-4, On Integrity Issue

No minister of justice could devise legislation to cope with integrity’, said the chairman (Mr F. R. Price), when the Christchurch Drainage Board last evening rejected a motion by Mr R. L. T. Sandford that it seek legislation “to protect the private citizen from the possibility of confidential information being used for financial gain by any elected local body member.”

After Mr Price had said that there were many other sources for leakages of information than board members, the motion was defeated on a division by nine votes to four.

“It is obvious that legislation so far enacted is quite inadequate to protect the citizen from abuse through private information being used for financial gain,” said Mr Sandford.

“Every local body member at some time is in receipt of private, highly confidential information. Nevertheless, it is amazing how it becomes public information in a very short time.” He said the restrictions in the Local Body Members’ Contracts Act did not go far enough. Directors of companies who were local body members were not barred from voting on questions in which they had an interest. As far as the acquisition of land was concerned, a chance word dropped to anybody could cause a local body considerable cost. This sort of thing had happened. "Land deals could be

covered by the member appointing a trustee. That should be stopped,” said Mr Sandford. “We have to ask has this happened, can it happen, will it happen?” Mr G. A. G. Connal said he opposed the motion because local body members were men of integrity who offered their services without thought of gain. “Members of this or other boards have to face the electors, and any suspicion of misconduct would be subject to inquiry in various ways,” he said. “I don’t think any local body member would get far along those lines.” “Mr Sandford should substantiate his claim that there has been a rise in land prices because of a leakage of information from this table,” Mr D. P. McLellan said.

The ethics of local body members, he said, were high, and the motion was an un-

warranted accusation. The ultimate result of any legislation would be to drive interested people from local body work. Opportunities for action on confidential information were practically nil, and the same opportunities were available to the public through the minutes. Mr J. F. Davidson, who seconded the motion pro forma, said the basis of the motion was dealings in land. He had been concerned, for some time that confidential transactions had become public property. He had been asked questions on such a subject 24 hours after it had been before the board. There were numbers of people who had access to the information which, it was claimed, was leaking, Mr Price said. Right through the board’s staff there were opportunities for leakages, as there were with companies dealing with the board, other authorities, and the press. “Why local body members should be selected, I don’t know,” said Mr Price. “There could be defects in the legislation—l think amendments are planned next year. I don’t feel like supporting the motion unless a specific instance is given.” Mr Sandford said the fact remained that the legislation was not strong enough, and loopholes should be blocked. On the division, only Messrs Sandford, Davidson, R. JStubberfield, and R. H. Stillwell voted in favour.