CIVIC ADMINISTRATION

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 318, 31 March 1928, Page 10

CIVIC ADMINISTRATION

COUNCILLOR MURRAY'S GRIEVANCES INQUIRY WITHOUT COSTS Following the Minister of Internal Affairs refusing to grant an inquiry into the Murray charges, the City Council has been in communication with Cr. W. H. Murray. The town clerk wrote: Dear Sir, — I am forwarding herewith a copy of the letter from the Assistant-Under-secretary, Department of Internal Affairs, Wellington, referred to in his telegram regarding the proposed inquiry. The letter was placed before the council at its meeting on the 22nd inst., and I have to request that, in accordance with the direction of the council indicated in the following resolution, a reply be sent to me within seven days: Resolution: “That on receipt of the letter from the Department of Internal Affairs, a copy be sent to Cr. Murray with a request that a reply be made by him thereto within seven days, on receipt of this reply it to be forwarded to the department with a renewed request to set up the commission applied for.” Councillor Murray’s reply (abridged) includes the following: “Sir, — “Your letter of the 23rd inst. to hand covering a copy of a reply dated the 22nd ult. from the Actirig-Under-Secre-tary of Internal Affairs to a letter written by you to the Under-Secretary on 21st ult., with a copy of which you did not favour me, but which I obtained at Town Hall this week on personal application. The attitude of the council in awarding me seven days in" which to reply is on a level with its general pose of dictatorship throughout- what is known as the Murray Inquiry. “Your letter now under review is the first intimation with which you have favoured me personally, in this regard, for over three months. In my judgment, to no individual councillor should be delegated the duty of replying personally to any official Ministerial communication, obviously directed to the council as a whole and dealing purely with council business. “It is a matter for comment that, though seeking my assistance in the manner above indicated, the council has in effect refused to permit returns to be furnished by you to me which might materially assist me in providing more detailed specification of my charges. “Remembering the costs imposed on outside local bodies by the Water Commission, and upon Mr. G. Lang by the Technical College Commission and forecasting the imposition of heavy costs on unwilling outside local bodies by the imminent Transport Commission which the council has forced upon Auckland, I do now most emphatically repeat my already publicly expressed condition precedent. I do so all the more particularly for the undeniable reason that the request to the Government for a commission of inquiry into the council’s administration was made by the unanimous resolution of the council itself. “It is my considered view that compliance wfth this condition would expedite the speedy authorisation of the desired commission. I understand that the Mayor, Councillor Dempsey and you in your official capacity were in Wellington as representatives of the council a fortnight ago. If it be fair to assume that opportunity was then available for a conference on this subject with the Prime Minister or with any other responsible Ministerial authority, it would appear regrettable that an invitation was not extended to me to share in the opportunity for affirming the necessity ol’ a commission. Nevertheless I am willing and prepared as a City Councillor to join my fellow councillors in pressing for the setting up of a judicial commission of inquiry by the Government. “Furthermore, - I am willing and ready to act as a’ member of a delegation from the council, in conjunction with the Mayor and any other councillors who may be selected, to proceed to Wellington at the council’s cost to interview the Prime Minister and to press the unanimous resolution of the council requesting the Government to set up a judicial commission of inquiry. Meantime 1 place on record the fact that ever since December 19 last I have been continuously (and still remain) ready and prepared to proceed with my available witnesses, as yet undisclosed, in terms of your two original and unique summonses to me to appear before the council’s investigating committee and to substantiate my public statements in council in November last. Had the council’s investigating committee resumed on January 20 last the taking of evidence as arranged, further definite material would have been placed on record by the oral testimony of new witnesses. As a possible effective alternative to the granting of a suitable judicial inquiry, I would submit to the Prime Minister, after he shall have perused the evidence available, that an opportunty be by him afforded to the present City Council to resign in a body so that the municipal electors may promptly select a new council somewhat suited to the city’s present requirements, problems and necessities. Failing a commission, with resignation and a fresh election, the occasion may then be appropriate for a 1 prompt repetition of Sydney’s Legislative Civic Commissioner Control. Yours faithfully, W. H. MURRAY, Councillor.”