PAYMENT FOR SERVICE

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXII, Issue 22261, 8 November 1935, Page 15

PAYMENT FOR SERVICE

CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PROPOSAL IN AUCKLAND MUNICIPAL CONFERENCE REMIT Tho payment of allowances to councillors for their services as councillors is to bo supported by the Auckland City Council in a remit which it was decided yesterday to forward to the next Municipal Conference. On tho order paper at a special meeting of the council yesterday there was a remit in tho name of Mr. A. Rosser suggesting an amendment to tho Municipal Corporations Act providing for the payment of any wages lost by any councillor while engaged on tho business of the council. Mr. Rosser said that when ho framed this remit he had overlooked the fact that a somewhat similar remit had been submitted to tho last conference and lost. This had sought to authorise tho payment of allowances to councillors for their services. Ho now preferred to withdraw his remit and have re-submitted to the conference tho one lost last year. It might be said that tho moment a Labour Council camo into office it sought power to have its members paid, but the remit which he now favoured had been brought forward by a former council on which Labour was in a minority, said.Mr. Rosser. On the council and on other similar bodies were men who in carrying out the duties placed on them were faced with a considerable loss. Tho large amount of time which had to be given by members in attending to their duties was not generally realised. " Sacrifices Required " It was pointed out by Mr. J. S. Stewart that candidates knew when they stood for election that such sacrifices would be required of them, and they should be prepared to carry out their duties without looking for payment. Mr. F. E. Lark disagreed with this view, and said that if they carried out the principle supported by Mr. Stewart only people with an assured income could be sure of attending meetings. Some members could not attend all ordinary and committee meetings and he thought some authority was required to enable them to recompense those who did attend and carry out the work. The original remit providing for the payment of allowances to councillors was supported by the Hon. T. Bloodworth, M.L.C., who said that there was a time when tho work of the council could be done within a brief period, but now a member had as much a fulltime job as a member of Parliament. However, he did not think there was enough work for 21 paid councillors and he favoured a reduction in the number. v Pay for Board Members Mr. Bloodworth mentioned that he was a member of the Auckland Power Board and had previously also been a member of the Auckland Transport Board. In each case he was paid for attendance at meetings and the work on those bodies was not as great as that required of a member of the Works Committee of the council. He thought there was a need for a coinpiste reorganisation of local body administration in a centre such as Auckland to bring the system into line; but failing that, the remit should be put forward. < Sir George Richardson said he was against payment for services rendered, but was as strongly in favour of recompensing those who made a sacrifice in carrying out their duties. However, he would support the remit. It might be said that tho council was \*ofcing itself payment, but he would be prepared to go on the platform with his fellow-members and speak of thi? earnestness with which they carried out their duties. A lot of time which many of the members could not afford was given to the work. Mr. Rosser was permitted to withdraw his remit and it was decided to adopt last year's remit and have it resubmitted to the conference.