Mr Caygill rejects claims of corruption

Press, 1 December 1987, Page 8

Mr Caygill rejects claims of corruption

BRENDON BURNS,

political reporter

Saying he had no reason to protect his departmental staff who handle import licences, the Minister of Trade and Industry, Mr Caygill, yesterday denied claims of widespread corruption.

In Parliament in recent weeks the Opposition spokesman on trade and Industry, Mr Philip Burdon (Fendalton), has maintained that a public inquiry should be held into the issuing of import licences. Departmental figures show $82.75 million in licences were held by three former staff and an associate. Mr Caygill said yesterday that the figures looked most alarming, but were the face value of the licences involved. Only $9 million of the licences were sold by the former staff members, with one suggested to have sold his for 1 per cent commission. If that was the standard commission, Mr Caygill said, a total sum of only

$90,000 would have been made by the departmental staff. “That is a lot of money, but it is a long way from $B2 million.” Mr Caygill said that the police were well aware of the total face value of the licences held by departmental staff. They had access to Trade and Industry Department records while making inquiries which led to criminal convictions. “I can’t see where a public inquiry gets us,” Mr Caygill said. The licences which staff had tendered for were those of a residual nature which nobody else had bid to win, he said. This did not mean it was right for staff to have sought these licences. It was not. But no further

evidence of abuse had been uncovered, beyond that which led to two prosecutions by the police. “I have no interest in protecting the department,” said Mr Caygill. However, he was very reluctant to expose it to an inquiry for something which he considered history. Beyond that, all Mr Burdon was making were outrageous claims. He wants to get rid of import licencing, which he said was “an obnoxious system,” providing some people with a monopoly. Mr Caygill said that he was very reluctant to stop the process of abolition to have an inquiry, unless new evidence of malpractice was produced.