PUBLIC BODY CONTRACTS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LX, Issue 18551, 8 November 1923, Page 10

PUBLIC BODY CONTRACTS.

LIABILITY OF MEMBERS.

RECENT CASE REVIEWED.

JBI TELEOBAPH.—- CORRESPONDENT-! WELLINGTON, Wednesday.

Some adverse comment has been made in the Auckland district on the action of the audit office in taking proceedings against the members of a local authority for the recovery of penalties for a breach of the Public Contracts and Local Bodies Contractors Act, 1908.

The Attorney-General. Sir Francis Bell, stated to-day that ho had caused inquiries to be made into the facts. It had. he said, been made to appear that members had been heavily penalised as a consequence of carrying out the duties of their public office. The fact was that the board had on more than one occasion committed a breach of the provisions of the Act by employing a member to perform certain services. The most serious aspect of the case was that vouchers, made out in a fictitious name, were passed for the payment of those services.

The Act, said the Attorney-General, provided that any member A a local body who is concerned or interested, otherwise than as a member of an incorporated company in which there are more than twenty members, and of which he is not the general manager, in a contract for the supply of anything, or for the performance of any work for the local body of which he is a member, or who knowingly supplies anything whatever to such local body, shall not be entitled to payment for the same, and any sum so paid shall bo recoverable at law, together with £10 in addition thereto, with the full costs of the suit by any person who sues for the same. The Audit Office, added Sir Francis, was bound to take action to ensure that the provisions of the law were observed in the case in question. The SolicitorGeneral advised that each member of the board was liable to a penalty of £20 and costs in respect of each separate offence. The heavv nature of the penalties showed clearly that the Legislature regarded the offence as a most serious one. The audit office considered, and the Solicitor-General agreed, that it would be failing in its duty if it did not take action to penalise such disregard, of the law The comments published did not cover the whole facts of the case, and the Attorney-General considered that, in justice to the audit office the above statement should be made public.