Final evidence heard in MacLeod inquiry

Press, Volume CXII, Issue 33035, 30 September 1972, Page 18

Final evidence heard in MacLeod inquiry

(New Zealand Press Association) WELLINGTON, September 29. The former editor of the “Listener,” Mr Alexander MacLeod, had a death wish, a former N.Z.B.C. board member, Mr Barry Brill, said today at the inquiry into Mr MacLeod’s dismissal. Mr Brill resigned from the board after being selected National Party candidate for Parliament in the Kapiti electorate.

The inquiry is being conducted by a retired Christchurch magistrate, Mr E. A. Lee. Mr Brill was the last witness, and the inquiry is expected to end on Monday. Mr Brill told Mr D. P. Neazor, counsel assisting the inquiry, that during the July 25 board meeting, some members knew that Mr MacLeod would denounce his dismissal as improper, and try to make as much fuss about it as he could. “If you knew this was coming, why didn’t' you include a warning to Mr Mac-

Leod in one of his messages for him to come to the meeting that the board was considering dismissing him?” Mr Neazor said. “It was not necessary,” Mr Brill said. “Your question seems to assume that we were wrong in making this move, and that we should have covered ourselves.” Mr MacLeod was told orally to come to the meeting twice, and declined both times, Mr Brill said. “He then received a pointed and absolute direction, with the words, ‘You are directed,’ included.

“I would have thought it would take a very obtuse person indeed not to regard this as an ultimatum.” Mr Neazor then asked Mr Brill if he thought Mr MacLeod had a death wish. “I do,” he said. “He would rather have been dismissed than relent to the board.”

“The board was not going to relent either, or send Mr MacLeod a warning,” Mr Neazor said.

“The board was not going to threaten him with dismissal,” Mr Brill said. “Mr MacLeod knew very well that if he didn’t comply with the third message he would be finished.” He said his view of Mr MacLeod was strengthened by what the N.Z.B.C. direc-tor-general (Mr L. R. Sceats) told the board meeting about Mr MacLeod’s background.

“But I noted that Mr Sceats was not protective of his subordinate, which he normally would have been with other executives,” Mr Brill said. “He made no attempt to defend, excuse, or protect Mr MacLeod, and he was of the same mind as the board members.” Mr Brill said the attitude of Mr Sceats at the meeting influenced him. “If Mr Sceats had taken a different view, it certainly would have given me pause at least.” After his dismissal, Mr MacLeod had prepared a press statement, which appeared m newspapers on July 26. Mr Brill said he was surprised by the content of the press statement, and thought that Mr MacLeod would have been good enough to mention that he had failed to

attend the board meeting four times. He did not think that newspapers would have considered Mr MacLeod’s “unsubstantial allegations” as warranting front-page headlines, Mr Brill said. He did not do anything about the statement until two days later, when he rang the board’s chairman, MajorGeneral W. S. McKinnon, and “pressed strongly” that it was time the board’s story was heard. General McKinnon told him he was preparing a press statement. Mr R. B. Cooke, Q.C., counsel representing the N.Z.8.C., asked Mr Brill if he considered that the possibility that Mr MacLeod might represent his dismissal as being for political motives should have influenced the board’s decision. “I don’t think any threat of reprisals should have deterred the board from taking the action it though proper,” Mr Brill said. “If we had decided not to dismiss Mr MacLeod for that reason, I would regard that as bowing to political pressure.”