WHO IS PAYING?

Evening Post, Volume CXVI, Issue 131, 30 November 1933, Page 12

WHO IS PAYING?

WITNESSES' EXPENSES

A COMMITTEE INTERLUDE

• 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 thd legislation, stated that in. the past local bodies had experienced difficulty in recovering' expenses involved iv the tendering of evidence on the water supply question. On the- present occasion the company had. given an undertaking that if the local bodies L committee, which -was appearing, encountered difficulty over the recovery of expenses, it would indemnify the mem-bers-against those expenses. Doubts had been raised, as to. whether local authorities, under the Municipal Cotporations Act, wore 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. :'■-.' " , ' : Later in the hearing, when Mr. H. F. W. Meikle, chairman' of the North Shore Water Board, was testifying, he was asked by Mr. Fraser whether ho considered it : was proper for. representatives of local bodies ta 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 got at the bottom of how unknown English financiers can get local bodies in New Zealand to come here and give evidence. (To Mr. Meikle): You think it is proper to accept payment of expenses from somebody you don't know?

Mr. Meikle: I would not say thati Mr. ,Giay 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 proper1? ,

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

Mr. 11. N. Bogerson, 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 counsel's expenses on both sides. Provision for it was made in the Bill, and it was' passed by the House.

Mr, Fraser: But we knew who the Transport Board was. ,'■ •' \ Mr. Kogerson: We know who this company is.