MEMBERS' RESPONSIBILITIES
- : ■_■■'■[ (To the Editor.) Sir,-—One, fact emerjging from the statements concerning "'the'leport: of the National Expenditure Commission is that we. have in Parliament 'a group of men whonow claim that the Commissioners were, unsuited to their job.* >• In view of -this fact one is entitled to ask, why. these men did not proclaim these^views before the appointments were made? ■ Was it not-their plain duty to have stated these views before the appointments w.ere made> of'-at the time they were announced, rather than remain silent whilst the State involved itself m an expenditure for which they foresaw: no justification?-How do these men, who now malign:.-the abilities.of the appointed Commissioners, justify their own positions in this respect? This is the second occasion of recent months in which the public of Wellington have been treated to-the: unusual: spectacle of a Commission being condemned by those .responsible for appointing the Commission, andTsuggest that some explanation should be given. ,A large section of the public who have, hitherto reposed: confidence in their elected representatives will be anxious to hear some explanation of this —I am, etc., ' ; ■■ • ./NEW BLOOD.
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/EP19321012.2.31.4
Bibliographic details
Evening Post, Volume CXIV, Issue 89, 12 October 1932, Page 6
Word Count
184MEMBERS' RESPONSIBILITIES Evening Post, Volume CXIV, Issue 89, 12 October 1932, Page 6
Using This Item
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the Evening Post. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.
Log in