PARLIAMENT SHAREHOLDING IN S.P.A.N.Z.

Press, Volume CI, Issue 29853, 20 June 1962, Page 16

PARLIAMENT SHAREHOLDING IN S.P.A.N.Z.

Mr Goosman Answers Opposition Itrom Our Parliamentary Reporter] WELLINGTON, June 19. The Minister of Works (Mr Goosman) tonight in the House of Representatives demanded from Opposition members an explanation of their reasons for attacking him in his shareholding in South Pacific Airlines of New Zealand. Speaking in the Address-in-Reply debate, Mr Goosman said that Mr S. A. Whitehead (Opposition, Nelson) had deliberately misrepresented the position by saying that members of the Cabinet held substantial holdings in S.P.A.N.Z. “I am anxious to know how my actions were wrong,” said Mr Goosman. “He made an aspersion but he did not make charges.” • Mr N. V. Douglas (Opposition, Auckland Central): He made no aspersion at all. He stated the facts. ,

Mr Goosman: I’ll expect the Deputy-Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hackett) to make an explanation because he is the man who got the information together with Mr Douglas. They made a search at the Deeds Office.

Mr Goosman said S.P.A.N Z. was incorporated on June 17, 1960, and he applied for 2000 5s shares on Aqgust 17. 1960. “This was a company being formed, a public company, with a large number of shareholders, hundreds of them, subscribing solely with the idea of assisting a company to provide a service to districts that had not had a service before. The service would go to Whataroa aerodrome in my district. “I paid up in full. I have held the shares since then with the full knowledge of my colleagues and many people outside.

“I don’t think anyone could possibly find any fault with that. On May 7, this year, I was absent in the Waikato when the Cabinet decided to make the company an advance. I have offered to dispose of my shares to the Opposition, but I haven’t had an offer yet,” said Mr Goosman.

Mr A. J. Faulkner (Opposition, Roskill): They are too hot for us. Mr Goosman: I am anxious to know where I went wrong It is an attempt to make the man in the street think that I have done something wTong. I expect the DeputyLeader of the Opposition to explain what I have done wrong. I have been attacked. I ask for the aspersion to be substantiated or withdrawn. No Replies

"I ask the Leader of the Opposition: Does he support these charges?” Mr Goosman asked.

Mr Nash did not reply. Mr Goosman: I ask Mr Nordmeyer: Does he support these charges? Does he dissociate himself from the accusations of Mr Whitehead?

Mr did not reply. Mr Goosman: I ask Mr Mason, who has been in the House longer than any of his colleagues. Mr Mason did not reply.

Mr Goosman: I ask responsible members of the Labour Party to declare themselves Mr Goosman said that he had been attacked before on political grounds, but this was the first time he had had doubts cast on him personally. “This will be my twentyfourth year in Parliament. I demand that the people who have made these aspersions should substantiate them or withdraw them,” said Mr Goosman. “111-advised”

Mr J. Mathison (Opposition, Avon) said Mr Goosman was a very keen advocate for selling NA..C. “lock, stock and barrel”

Mr Mathison said Mr Goosman had said he had sold his shares in the company, but now he was offering them to members of the Opposition. If he had sold them, did he sell them because he thought the shares would depreciate in value “because of the Government’s action?" Mr Mathison asked “I believe the Minister is a man of very high integrity on this.

I believe that he was illadvised.

“I am surprised that the Prime Minister knew of these shares and didn’t take steps to see that he sold them many months ago. “I will be surprised to see what the Auditor-General has to say about this loan, about the justification for it, the repayments and the security."

Mr Mathison said the Air Services Licensing Authority would want a great deal of evidence before it would grant a monopoly on the Nelson-Christchurch route to S.P.A.N.Z.

“Who persuaded the Minister, I do not know,” he said. “It might have been a colleague who had a shareholding.” “Childish” Charge

The Minister of Civil Aviation (Mr McAlpine) described as “childish” remarks made by Mr Douglas on Bay of Plenty Airways.

Amid applause from Government members he challenged Mr Douglas to make the remarks “outside the House, where he is not privileged and where I can do something about it.” J■. Douglas last week stated that Mr McAlpine, as Minister, had gone to the assistance of Bay of Plenty Airways in 1961. He said the airline was one-third owned by New Zealand Newspapers—a company in which Mr McAlpine has shares.

Mr McAlpine detailed the airline’s history at the time it was in the hands of the liquidator. He said N.A.C. had taken over a third share to get it going again on the approval of 86 per cent, of the shareholders and with almost unanimous support of East Coast local bodies, mayors, and residents. New Zealand Newspapers had written off £23,714 in debentures to keep the airline alive. ( Then, last November, the airline had lost an aircraft. The five pasengers and the pilot were killed. The Government had said N.A.C. could not pay the necessary £115,000 for a new aircraft and the company was now in recess. Newspaper Shares Mr McAlpine said he had 400 shares in New Zealand Newspapers—a company with a paid up capital of £1,797,000. This was l/6000th of the total.

“Since the company had only a third share in the airline, my responsibility would be in 10 or more decimals," said Mr McAlpins.

Mr H. L. J. May (Opposition, Onslow): Does the amount of money determine the principle? Mr McAlpine submitted that he had not transgressed any regulations concerning the holding of shares by a Minister.

As the number and noise of interjections and murmurings from both sides of the House increased during Mr McAlpine’s speech, the Speaker (Mr Algie) called for order. The allegations had been he«.rd in silence, he said, and the refutation should be heard in silence also. That applied to the Opposition as well.