NEW TRANSPORT CRISIS

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 675, 29 May 1929, Page 7

NEW TRANSPORT CRISIS

Startling Interpretation of Act

CITY SOLICITOR’S BOMBSHELL

Ruling Gags Six Representatives

RARELY has a civic authority admitted itself so staggered as did the City Council last evening when its solicitor, Mr. ,T. Stanton, made certain interpretations of the Auckland Transport Board Act in the course of an electric debate on Cr. T. Bloodworth’s motion to remove the council’s six representatives from the Transport Board. The first shock came when Mr. Stanton, through the Mayor. Mr. G. Baildon, ruled that the Municipal Corporations Act debarred councillors who were the subject of the motion from uttering a syllable, in their own cause or from voting. Thus the five councillors most concerned (the sixth representative being no longer a councillor) could 'only look on dazedly while the motion swept them out of office.

Subsequently the solicitor flung another bomb and wrecked a plan in process of crystallisation to force a poll for the replacement of the discarded six. Cr. Bloodworth moved, in effect, that the sis representatives appointed by the old council to act for the cityon the Transport Board be recalled forthwith. They were: Mr. J. A. C. Allum, a defeated councillor, the Mayor, and Crs. G. G. Ashley, M. J. Coyle, A. J, Entrican and E. J. Phelan. The debate had proceeded tor nearly ah hour before any of the councillors in question made a move to speak. When, ho tv over, Cr. Entrican rose to defend himself and his colleagues he was promptly ruled out of order. The city solicitor then explained that the five rvere in effect gagged. Cr. Blqodworth having carried his motion by 11 to 6, began to discuss the question of an immediate poll for choosing substitute members. It had been generally believed In the city that the Transport Act required a poll If removed representatives had not been replaced by May 31, 1929. That date was enacted in order to give local authorities a chance of removing representatives defeated in the recent municipal elections and appointing others. Widespread interpretation of the Act held that if an authority did not make re-appoint-ments before the end of this month an election by the people was imperative. Cr. Bloodworth and most of his supporters had banked on such an election. For this reason he had been careful to exclude from his motion all reference to re-appointment of successors to the rejected members. MR. STANTON’S VIEW

Asked his opinion, Mr. Stanton said: “Until X heard the debate this evening I was quite of the opinion that this meeting intended forthwith to appoint new members. Section 11 regarding the holding of a poll applies, in my interpretation, only' to extraordinary vacancies such as created by the death or resignation of a member. The removal of a member by an authority as has been done this evening does not create an extraordinary vacancy. “If a member of the Transport Board it removed and no appointment is made before May 31, there is no vacancy. “It was never the intention of the Act that local bodies should remove and not reappoint. I cannot see in the Act any provision for filling a vacancy if a local body removes its representative and does not at once make a new appointment. Certainly there is no provision for filling a vacancy unless an extraordinary vacancy should arise. “If you remove tonight it.* must be for the purpose of re-appointing before the expiry of the time allowed by the Ad,” Cr. J. R. Bundon: Not necessarily tonight. Mr. Stanton: At this meeting or at an adjournment. The meeting must be kept alive. ANOMALY OF ACT Commenting on the turn affairs had taken. Cr. Bloodworth said it was his desire to bring about an election and it was contrary to his intention to have others re-appointed. Since the abrupt change of events and as a result of the city solicitor’s interpretation, it was apparent the council would have to re-appoint other representatives immediately. “Discussion this evening has shown the folly of the whole business,” Cr. Bloodworth said. “The Act bristles with anomalies and difficulties, but there are such things in the land as courts.” A quarter of an hour’s argumentthen followed as to whether new members should be chosen then and there. Cr. Lundon held that as no provision had been made on the order paper a selection must be out of order. Cr. Phelan: Why not get the job over and done with ? The Mayor: We hare to deal with it now or 'at an adjourned meeting. On the motion of Cr. J. B. Paterson the meeting was adjourned until S o’clock on Thursday evening. “Can’t we have an election in the present circumstances?” asked Cr. W. H. Murray. “Not without amendment to the

Act ” SIGNING THE CHEQUES “During a meeting of the Transport Board this afternoon I was appointed with another to sign cheques, said Cr. Phelan. “What I want to know is. what is my position now? Am I entitled to go on signing them or await further instructions?” •‘You go on signing those cheques, observed the Mayor, to roars of laughter.

during my election campaign I gave a promise that I would take steps, if returned, to ask the council to exercise its full authority under the Transport Act In respect of its representations. I therefore take this opportunity of renewing that pledge.” It would be apparent, Cr. Bloodworth continued. that the motion asked only for the recall of members and not the appointment of others. He had always favoured an elective board; that was why he pursued his motion no further. The late Transport Commission was not sound in recommending that the first board should be a nominated one. Its reason was that the public, being disturbed in mind over transport matters at the time of the formation of the board, might act rashly if allowed then to select members.

“The municipal elections suggested the electors were in a reasoned mind and I submit their decisions emphasised their fitness to select a Transport Board.” The choice of board members by secret ballot last November was illegal because, under the Municipal Corporations Act, such ballots should be conducted openly.

“Some people are kind enough to suggest I am moving this motion because I want to be a member of the board,” continued the councillor. “There was a time when I had such a desire, but I do not want to go there now. I believe the board is committed to a policy, which is financially unsound and I think the opinion of the people ought to be obtained by an election.” Cr. J. R. Lundon seconded and reserved his remarks. A POSITIVE TRAGEDY

Cr. 11. P. Burton considered it a positive tragedy that Mr. Allum had not been re-elected to the council. The whole position was one of principle. If it were right that Mr. Allum be reappointed to the Transport Board, it was also right that Mr. S. I. Crookes, who was also defeated, should be appointed to the chairmanship of the Town-Planning Committee. Cr. Ellen Melville said that there was no doubt the public mind was still in an agitated state. Cr. Burton’s view was quite erroneous. There was no reason why the new council should not endorse the action of the old. The public vote had emphatically endorsed the Transport Board’s policy and public opinion was so clear that there was no difficulty as to the council's duty. Cr. W. H.~ Murray reiterated his contention that the first board should have been immediately elective. It was nonsensical to state that the public was not normal. It might even be said that some councillors were abnormal. Cr. Melville: Some of them are! Cr. Murray: When we talk about the public not being normal — Cr. Melville: I did not say the public was not normal, but I did say they were not yet normal about transport matters. ELECTION UNWARRANTED

Cr. B. L. Bagnali could not support the motion as it stood. If it meant an election he was definitely opposed. The expense was not warranted. If the council was empowered to select new members forthwith, he would support Cr. Bloodworth. The reason for Mr. Allum’s defeat was an insidious attack by certain interests. “I support this motion,” declared Cr. •J. Dempsey. “I am not hostile, but I think a change is necessary. The clause enabling council to remove its members was a wise one. New members of this council should be given a chance of voicing their opinion as to who should represent the city.” “It is all bunkum to say that the people were abnormal. It is extraordinary how we find abnormality in people we don't agree with,” remarked Cr. Bartram, amid laughter. SURPRISE FOR COUNCIL

When Cr. A. J. Entrican rose to speak the Mayor ruled that present members of the Transport Board were entitled to have no voice in the debate, neither could they vote. "Does that mean that every time a Transport Board member cannot vote when a transport matter comes before council?” asked Cr. Melville. Mr. Stanton said there was no reason why members of the Transport Board should not vote on questions other than their removal from an appointment to the board. Persons placed there became pecuniarily interested in the subject under discussion.

To Cr. Bloodworth, the solicitor said the Mayor was, however, quite entitled to preside, but could not take part in the discussion. OFFER TO RESIGN

Cr. Phelan: It would make things more comfortable if members handed in their resignations. I am prepared to tender mine here and now. (Hear! Hear! from councillors and iTom the crowded gallery.) Cr. Entrican: Is one allowed to remain?

The Mayor (decisively): I am not going to retire. I am staying where I am. X am not going to send in my resignation. I was elected by the council and will not resign until I am removed.

“If I voted against, the motion I should feel I was starting my municipal career on the wrong foot,” stated Cr. G. W. Hutchison. “The will of the people was very definite, and council should give effect to that will by a poll.” He had had a chance of examining the board's accounts, and he £elt it was advisable that some other person with a knowledge of accounts should be placed on the board. The chairman of the Transport Board had expressed himself gratified with the condition of the finances. If an

alleged profit of £1,400 gained out of j a capital of £1,853,000 was creditable, j then he could not agree. LACK OF HARMONY

A further reason for a change was the lack of harmony of its members. A business organisation having discord among its directors would at once lose the confidence of shareholders. He wished to make it clear that, like Cr. Bloodworth, he did not seek a seat on the board.

Cr. Grey Campbell supported the motion because he saw no reason why the council should not give the citizens a chance to elect their members. The time had come when the Transport Board should no longer be considered a part of the City Council. “I have never met Mr. Allum but his trouble is that he has a mind of his own and that he is not afraid to express it,” remarked Cr. B. M. Irvine. He should be given a chance. LIABLE TO £SO FINE Cr. Lundon spoke out his time and quoted the Municipal Corporations Act, amplifying the city solicitor’s ruling about the ineligibility of board members to vote. “They are liable to a fine of £50,” said the councillor. Cr. Bagnali said the solicitor’s ruling had reversed his vote. When a division was taken the voting was as follows: Ayes (11) Hutchison Brownlee Bartrum Bagnali Burton Campbell Lundon 'Donald Bloodworth Murray Dfempsey (Noes (6) Irvine Casey . Bennett Miss Melville Baterson Miss Basten