Matai letters released

Press, Volume CXV, Issue 33940, 5 September 1975, Page 1

Matai letters released

The Crown Law Office produced a statement in which the Prime Minister (Mr Rowling) apparently was prepared to undertake not to refer to Matai Industries, Ltd, outside Parliament, according to copies of letters given to “The Press” last night by Matai’s former managing director (Mr K. F. Meates). The correspondence, between Mr Meates’s Auckland solicitor, Mr R. L Maclaren, and Crown counsel, Dr D. L. Mathieson, dates back to when a motion alleging contempt of court by Mr Rowling was filed in the Wellington Supreme Court last June 18. The motion, supported by an affidavit sworn by Mr Meates, alleged Mr Rowling was in contempt when, in a speech at Westport, he referred to matters relating to Matai Industries which were already before the court. According to the copies of

the letters given to “The Press,” Dr Mathieson wrote t,o Mr Maclaren on July 9 saying that the Crown Law Office had no authority to accept service on behalf of Mr Rowling of any documents relating to the motion. The motion and affidavit were subsequently served on Mr Rowling through his secretary by a Wellington solicitor. Mr W. V. Gazley, acting on Mr Maclaren’s behalf. In reply to Dr Mathieson, Mr Maclaren wrote to the Crown Law Office on July 29: “Further to your letter of 9th July, we write to record that Dr Mathieson spoke to the writer inquiring whether our client will accept an apology under the hand of the Prime Minister and an undertaking not to repeat outside the House further utterances relating to the Matai Industries case.” Mr Maclaren continued that his client was prepared to accept an apology and undertaking provided it was made public and provided that his client was recompensed for the cost of launching the proceedings. D, ’ Mathieson replied on

August 11: “I deny inquiring whether your client would accept an apology and undertaking. “The Prime Minister is not prepared to offer your client an apology as he considers there is nothing to apologise for. “My inquiry on the telephone related to whether your client would accept an undertaking not to say anything outside the House relating to the Matai Industries case. “I enclose a draft letter for your consideration. Please advise as soon as possible whether your client finds the wording acceptable. “If he does, it is understood that when the Prime Minister signs the letter, as he has indicated that he is readv to do. it may be published.” The draft statement .-read: “Pursuant to correspondence between solicitors, I give my undertaking not to make any speech outside the House relating to Matai Industries, Ltd, or to the litigation in which you and other shareholders of the company are suing the Crown.

"This .undertaking is to last until that litigation is finally disposed of. “You will appreciate that I can give no undertaking not to refer to Matai Industries, Ltd, in the House, where I may at any time be asked questions about Matai Industries, Ltd, or the development ,of the West Coast, to which I should have to give an appropriate answer. “The Government continues to regard the economic development of the West Coast as a matter of high importance.

“I deny having said anything that could be regarded as a contempt of court. Certainly I said nothing with the intention of prejudicing the fair trial of the litigation that you have commenced. "I am nevertheless glad that the matter can be amicably disposed of by my giving the undertaking contained in this letter . . . Prime Minister.” Mr Maclaren tvrote to Dr Mathieson on August 15 that “the purported offer contained in your letter is completely unacceptable.”