DEFENCE COMMISSION.

Press, Volume LIV, Issue 16210, 13 May 1918, Page 4

DEFENCE COMMISSION.

(TRESS ASSOCIATION" TELEGRAM.)

WELLINGTON, May 11

Before the Defence Expenditure Commission to-day, Mr A. D. Thomson, Assistant Public iService Commissioner, stated that there were two authorities supplying staffs to the militaiy branch. This was unsatisfactory. The Public Service Commissioner had no control over the Home IService branch. This dual control created dissatisfaction. Military and civilian officers were working side by side, and tho former got extra pay. The soldier was paid, not according to the work he did, but to the rank he held.

Questioned on the subject of frauds, the witness said that thero had really been nothing to complain about, apart from a few irregularities in connexion with stores.

The chairman said that New Zealand was the only country he knew of which had passed tlirough the war period without some frauds being discovered in connexion with military organisation.

Contention was made by Major Norton Francis, officer in charge of Base Records,' that T. W. McDonald was wrong in his figures as to the saving to bo effected by having the Base Records and AVar Expenses Branches under the one roof. Many office men in uniform were unpaid. The practice was in his department to employ returned soldiers and unfit men. The chairman said tho point was that it was inadvisable to keep fit men in jobs where unfit men were available.

Major Francis said he did not understand that it was the policy of the Government to discharge returned soldiers because their work could bo done

by women. The statement that Mr Warnes, of the Correspondence Branch, was not allowed to approach witness as Director was contrary to fact. Any sectional head could go to him direct. The chairman said that the Commission had never once been able to trace a case in • which the Minister of Defence had interfered with an appointment.