INSPECTION OF FILES

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 956, 26 April 1930, Page 6

INSPECTION OF FILES

CR. LUNDON COMPLAINS COUNCIL DEBATES POINT Complaining that he had been refused admission to inspect the files of City business, Cr. J. R. Lundon wanted to know why at the meeting of the City Council on Thursday evening, and precipitated a debate which revealed | that he had a majority with him. Cr. Lundon, who asked for certain | information about the council’s dealI ings with Auckland Speedways Ltd., said he had been refused by the Town Clerk permission to complete an inspection of the files after he had been allowed to begin an investigation. ALREADY DEALT WITH In moving that the request be declined, the Mayor, Mr. G. Baildon, remarked that the councillor was asking for what had already been dealt with. “If all councillors are going to ask for details in this my we will have to engage a special staff,” he added. Cr. J. B. Paterson seconded. Cr. Lundon: When a councillor asks for information it is courtesy to grant it. I have been refused on five occasions Cr. G. Grey Campbell attempted to have the next business dealt with when he observed that Cr. Lundon was not speaking to the point at issue. Council did not want to be there until midnight. Cr. Lundon spoke out his time, and the Mayor put the usual formula, “Is it the wish of the council that Cr. Lundon be allowed to continue. Chorus: No! Stating that he had also been refused access to the files. Cr. W. H. Murray felt it was high time that the question was settled once and for all. In moving the amendment that the information be given and supplied to all councillors, Cr. T. Bloodworth expressed the opinion that a refusal was not in accordance either with practice or precedent. Information of the kind Cr. Lundon sought should not be made available to one member alone, but to all. Seconding, Cr. F. N. Bartram said he did not believe in any councillor receiving special, treatment. PRINCIPLE AT STAKE “I think a very vital principle is involved in this question.” remarked Cr. H. P. Burton in supporting the amendment. Cr. E. J. Phelan, who gave tlie assurance that he had never been refused any information he desired, submitted each request should be considered on its own merits. He voted against both the resolution and the amendment. Why, he demanded, should contract information be divulged? A giving out of such material might be prejudicial to one or other of the contracting parties. Cr. G. Grey Campbell did not agree that information should ordinarily be withheld, but a contract was confidential and ought to be maintained inviolate. PARTIES TO AGREEMENT “Surely we as parties to the contract in question have the right to know details of the agreement,” Cr. G. W. Hutchison commented. “Have we descended so low as to broadcast information given confidentially?” he asked. It was unfair to ipipute wrong motives to one member, said Cr. Ellen Melville, who intimated that if she were refused information she would certainly want to know why. After further discussion Cr. Bloodworth’s amendment was carried. TOWN CLERK’S REPORT The question was the subject of a report by the Town Clerk, Mr. J. S. Brigham, who replied to a question by Cr. Lundon. The member wished to know upon whose instruction permission to peruse files relating to the workers’ dwellings had been repeatedly refused by the clerk of council. Mr. Brigham took responsibility for refusing access to the files. It was in accordance with precedent and was in conformity with the opinion of the City soliictor that apart from the statutory right of inspection of minutes and accounts, it was a matter for the council to decide whether any demand to inspect correspondence or other documents should be complied with.