INQUIRY SHOULD BE PUBLIC

Dominion, Volume 39, Issue 27, 26 October 1945, Page 7

INQUIRY SHOULD BE PUBLIC

Comment Of Returned Men’s Organizations In the past week the “Sydney Morning Herald” has published a number of articles concerning the inquiry ordered by General Blarney into Lieut.-General Bennett’s escape from' Singapore. It reported that Federal members of Parliament and returned soldiers’ representatives claimed that in fairness to Lieutenant-General Bennett his. escape from Malaya should be the subject of a public inquiry, and not a restricted Army investigation. It was suggested that if the Government did not order an open ■ inquiry, General Bennett might demand a court-martial to ensure a public hearing. The' Governmjjn was not responsible for the inquiry, the Minister for Defence, Mr. Beasley; said. He added that the verdict “may finally reach. the Government for confirmation or otherwise.” The inquiry, Mr. Beasley said, originated strictly within the military code. General Blarney, he said, had the. right to court-martial, or inquire, or impose any penalties which he considered proper. There was no reason why the decision, ordering the inquiry should have been approved by any Minister. Any Governmental action would be cutting across the Commander-in.-Chief’s powers. Ministdrs/cse said, had known that the Army organization was considering some action, but were not aware of the form it would take. In military and returned soldiers circles in Sydney surprise was expressed that the members of the court did not include, preferably as chairman, a member of the judiciary. The executive chairman of the Eighth. Division Association. Mr. W. A. Quirk, said that, under the proposed inquiry, the Army would provide no legal assistance for General Bennett. “I am informed by General Bennett that be would welcome an inquiry if it were conducted in public and by an independent tribunal,” Mr. Quirk said. “I strongly object to General Blarney’s reopening in this way a matter which had been closed to the satisfaction of all some years ago by findings of the War Cabinet b and of the Service Chiefs-of-Staff. “If General Blarney is so terribly anxious for an inquiry, why did he not yield to Lieutenant-General Bennett’s repeated requests for one in 1942 when the incident was still fresh in the public mind?” [After General Bennett reached Australia following his escape he was interviewed by the Australian War Cabinet, and the late Dlr. Curtin issued the following statement:— “War Cabinet and the chiefs of staff today met Major-General H. G. Bennett. He reported fully on the Malayan campaign, including the battle for and the surrendet’ of Singapore. . “I desire to inform the nation that we are proud to pay tribute to the efficiency, gallantry, and devotion of our forces throughout the whole struggle. “Wo have expressed to Major-General Bennett our confidence in him. His leadership and conduct were in complete conformity with his duties ,to the men under bis command ami to bis country. “He remained with his men till the end completed all formalities in connexion with the surrender, and then took the opportunity and risk of escaping. I