The Wanganui Chronicle TUESDAY, MARCH 30, 1948. PAYMENT FOR LOCAL BODY WORK

Wanganui Chronicle, 30 March 1948, Page 4

The Wanganui Chronicle TUESDAY, MARCH 30, 1948. PAYMENT FOR LOCAL BODY WORK

' | 'HE recent wave of deep dissatisfaction against Parliamentarians of New Zealand according themselves a superannuation scheme is being duplicated in the United Kingdom through another cause. The new Local Government Bill provides that members can claim travelling expenses, subsistence allowances and—here it is —payment for “loss of remunerative time.” This is quite a gentlemanly thing to propose. Did not that great amateur sportsman, Dr. W. G. Grace, the prince of cricketers, require to be paid £5 each day that he devoted to cricket on this very ground, loss of remuneration through being away from his medical practice? He remained a “gentleman.” Local body politicians who urge that their loss of remunerative time should be made up to . them out of the public purse will therefore be able to press their claims without fear of losing their amateur status or being regarded as professional politicians. The conditions under which these monies for loss of remunerative time can be claimed are:— (a) Attendance at a meeting of the body, or any committee or sub-committee thereof. (b) Any other activity approved by the body or by any committee or sub-committee. Objection is expressed to these proposals in the Bill on behalf of the National Union of Ratepayers by the Public Economy Association. Payments of the loss of remunerative time may amount to 35s a day and in the County of London are 42s—in addition to travelling expenses. These sums seem to be reasonable enough remuneration for a man devoting his time to the public well-being. The Public Economy Association, however, points out that if every one of these 50,000 councillors claims for compensation for “some part of three days a week devoted to eoun’cil business” the ratepayers of the country will have to foot the bill to the extent of £12,000,000 a year. Such a burden on a five per cent, basis would mean a transference of the benefit of some £240,000,000 of rateable property. In the present era of cheap money, however, it is more likely to mean the transference of the benefit of property to the value of £480,000,000.

It can be claimed that if councillors are engaged in public business which in the aggregate results in a remuneration loss of £12,000,000 annually then the loss is too great for the individuals concerned to be carrying today. Assuming that to be so, the question arises as to whether this loss should be charged upon rateable property. If the councillors are engaged in conserving the interests of the ratepayers and them only, then there is every reason for the ratepayers being charged with the cost of the benefit. But are councillors always engaged in conserving the ratepayers’ interests or of carving them up? If the latter is part of their activity then it would be very unkind to ask a mkn to.pay for his own execution. The situation might be regarded as too piquant. The Association in objection to these allowances says that it makes possible the holding of unnecessary meetings, indulgence in non-essential journeys, and the encouragement of circumstances which in the past have led to considerable criticism and considerable legal action. These dangers are obvious enough, for the man who has time on his hands today is the worst offender against expedition in the conduct of public business. He would have a premium put upon his present trying conduct which hinders the conduct of public affairs enough already. To oppose the suggestions advanced in the Local Government Bill, however, does not solve the problem. Public business grows in volume and in complexity. As a result it demands more time of those who are willing to accept public office. Those who can undertake these offices grow fewer and fewer in these times of heavier taxation and of difficulty in saving money against retirement. Those who are available for the conduct of public business are not necessarily the best qualified for the task and the prospect is that only those without qualification will be available. To make this activity more attractive to this class is to court more troubles than are now known. What is to be done? The work of local bodies is not confined to the interests of ratepayers and, therefore, should not be carried solely by locally owned rateable property. As everybody benefits so everybody should pay. If the service is not worth paying for it should not. be demanded. This means a reversal of current tendencies. It would involve the limiting of the powers and duties of local authorities and the leaving of many activities to ether members of society to carry out. That might not be a had idea. Admittedly it is by no means novel, but it has not been given much consideration of late. If ratepayers could think up a schedule of activities that the Wanganui City Council could retire from they might pave the way to a reduction of the rates. The direction to the City Council to clear out of the extravagantly burdensome transport businessin which everyone else is making solid profits—might not be left as a lone decision.