LOCAL BODY CONTRACTS.

Waipa Post, Volume XXIV, Issue 1425, 10 November 1923, Page 4

LOCAL BODY CONTRACTS.

AUDITOR-GENERAL’S RESPONSIBILITY. “SAUCE FOR THE GOOSE IS ” Seeing that the Attorney-General (Sir Francis Bell), has caused to ; be publshed as widely as possible a statement in defence of the AuditorGeneral’s prosecution of members of the Kihikihi Town Board for sanctioning trading by a member, it is perhaps desirable that some further questions be asked, particularly in reference to the future policy-of the Government.

The Attorney-General’s statement is, in effect, an explanation of the Legislature, which fixes a statutory penalty.. He adds that the Board in question on more than one occasion employed one of its members to perform certain services, the vouchers for which were made out in a fictitious name. In these circumstances the Auditor-General and SolicitorGeneral agreed that they would fail in their duty if no action were taken.

Nobody, it is true, can approve of the action in passing vouchers in a fictitious name, but it may be asked whether the stringency of the Act — remembering that there is no suggestion of fraudulent workmanship or misappropriation of moneys—forced men whose administration was otherwise perfectly honourable to resort to this subterfuge particularly seeing that the employment of any other man’s services would have caused*a delay that would have added to the cost.

The point, however, must now be raised whether legal protection of the public interest in public administra-’ tion, which is applied in the case of local bodies, should not also be applied against Parliament itself. If the local authority is held to be corrupt, so much so that without the right of trial or investigation of facts or circumstances a statutory penalty is imposed, then should not our members of Parliament be subjected to similar If the public must be protected in the . one department of public administration, then why not in the other?

Here are five men who, as voluntary servants of the public, are statutorily fined £175 Their biggest offence is that they allowed a member of the Board to do work that nobody else in the immediate locality would or could do—and 1 at a lower cost than would have been the case in the event of delay occurring for the importation of other workmen. That was the real offence; the subterfuge of a fictitious name was resorted to afterwards and was secondary. The right of a fair trial is the foundation of British justice, yet it is denied the members of the local authority. The member of Parliament—a paid servant of the public—is immune, however, from any such restriction. He is free to trade with the Government or anybody. More or less frequently it has happened that members of both Houses of Parliament have been concerned >in contracts and sales to the Government, and many of these have given rise to very serious public questioning as in the case of the Government purchase of lands for returned soldiers’ settlement. Yet who ever heard of the Auditor General taking action “in the public interest,” or has there ever been the suggestion of a statutory penalty—without the right of trial —because the member of Parliament traded with the, Government and irrespective altogether of whether the trading was good, bad or indifferent. Also, was it the Auditor General who announced a year or two ago that a considerable item appeared on the expenditure side of an Auckland racing club’s balance - sheet for costs incurred in connection with the Racing Commission’s report? What was that expenditure, who got the money, and how did it happen that any racing club had to pay one penny piece for a commission that was appointed by the Crown? More particularly, why was it all “hushed up?” There is a grave suspicion that the only object of this expenditure was to defeat the proper procedure of Parliament resulting in the waste of all the public money that had been spent in connection with a Royal Commission.

Will the Attorney General make a further statement to the country? Will he say whether, for every scandal in connection with local bodies’ administration, a scandal could not be directed against the general administration? It seems to all fairminded people that the old axiom—- “ Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander,” should: apply. If the public must be protected in the one instance, why not in the other? Are all the moral virtues—in public life—to be found in the members of Parliament, and are all the tendencies to corrupt practices found in the members of our local authorities. , Very certainly a law that applies to, one should be made to apply to the other.

The Public Contracts and Local Bodies Contracts Act, which is referred to by the Attorney General, applies to x County Council, Road Board, Harbour Board, River Board, Water Supply Board, Drainage Board, Education Board and Hospital Board. If the Government Is genuine in its consideration of “the public interest” then we may expect to find a slight amendment of this Act, the Secret Commissions .Act and other enactments for the regulation of morals in public life, so as to bring within the definition of these laws all members of the Legislature. That seems nothing more than a fair and equitable thing.