GRAVE CHARGES

Evening Post, Volume CXVIII, Issue 94, 18 October 1934, Page 13

GRAVE CHARGES

WIGRAM AERODROME

MOVE FOR INQUIRY

EMPLOYEE'S PETITION

ANIMATED DISCUSSION

A recommendation by the Defence Committee that a Magisterial inquiry should be held into charges of irregularities at Wigram Aerodrome, Christchurch, . made by Leonard Sayers, of Riccarton, who is employed at the aerodrome, led to a lengthy and animated debate in the House of Representatives yesterday afternoon. Sayers, who is under notice of the termination of his contract, recently petitioned Parliament asking for a full inquiry into his position. The Defence Committee recommended that the petition should be referred to the Government for favourable consideration, and further recommended that Sayers should be retained in the service until a Magisterial inquiry was held into the alleged irregularities. Mr. W. E. Barnard (Labour, Napier) expressed the hope that the Government -would give effect to the recommendations of the Committee, because in his opinion the Committee had acted very properly in giving such a judicial finding. He expressed his surprise that the Defence Department had made no attempt to give the Committee its version of the affair. The petitioner had appeared in person, and, had made a series of charges regarding the working of the Wigram Aerodrome. The charges had not been contradicted. Some attempt was made to explain one or two of the charges away, but a definite impression was left on the minds of the Committee that there was something in connection with the Wigram Aerodrome that required investigation. Beyond that the Committee was careful npt to go, becauso it realised that the position was somewhat delicate, as the Department, for some reason or other, had not produced its witnesses. In a case in which the administration of departmental officers was directly or indirectly at issue, it was desirable that the Minister of Defence should bo present at tho sittings of the Committee, but Mr. Cobbe-'had not attended. He was at a loss to understand the Minister's non-attend-ance. Ho must have known that the charges made in tho petition would be ventilated. He thought he was correct in saying—and in this he was expressing the opinion of the Committee—that if the petitioner had been guilty of anything at all he had been guilty of an exaggerated senso of duty to tho Crown. In his opinion a man who was guilty of that was worthy of generous treatment. The Committee had been very careful, in framing its report, not to reflect on the Defence Department or on any officers of the Department. It was not desired that a military tribunal should be set up, as it was inevitable that such a tribunal would bo biased against tho petitioner. What was desired was that there should bo a Magisterial inquiry so that the whole matter would be approached in an openminded manner. MINISTER'S POSITION. The Minister of Defence (the Hon. J. G. Cobbe) moved that the report should be referred back to the committee with the' Object of enabling tho Defence officers to give evidence. At tho time the petition was being considered by the- Committee he had been busily engaged on other business and had not been able to attend. Sayers had been engaged by Wing-Commander Grant-Dalton in 1929 for a period of five years. He was found to be unsuitable for the work for which he was engaged and he was then put in charge of the stores at the Wigram Aerodrome. The arrangement made was that if he was found to be satisfactory he would bo given a further engagement at the end of five years. However, Sayers had not been recommended for reappointment. For somo little time quito a number of anonymous letters had been sent into the Controller and AuditorGeneral in connection with matters at the aerodrome. Audit inspectors had carried out an investigation, and it had been found that tho charges were trivial and that no action was justified. The charges made in the anonymous letters were found to be almost exactly in line with the charges made by tho petitioner. Tho officer representing the Department before the Committee had no knowledgo of tho charges, because the Department had not been supplied with a statement setting out their nature. It was only fail and right that the Department should have an opportunity of replying to the /charges which had been made against it. It sometimes happened that a man dismissed from the service- mado charges against tho Department. The Minister of Native Affairs (tho Hon. Sir Apirana Ngata) seconded the amendment. CASE FOR A MAGISTRATE. Mr. E. J. Howard (Labour, Christchurch South) said he thought the Committee- had brought in the right recommendation, and he urged the Minister not to press Ms amendment. It was preferable that charges such us had been mado should be heard before a Magistrate, as the petitioner would then be on his oath. If the Defence Department felt that the charges made against it were unfair it would be preferable to have the wholo matter investigated by a Magistrate. If the committee reversed its decision thero would be hundreds of people who would not be satisfied. , Epgret that tlio Minister had not been present at tho sittings of tho committoo was expressed by Mr. 13. V. llealy (Government, Wairau), who said that the petitioner had made grave chargos against Flight-Lieutenant Denton, who had since bceu transferred from Wigram to Wellington. Tlio Department must have known that Dentonwas the man who would have to stand up against the charges that had been made. It would havo been very helpful to • the committee if the officer mentioned and Squadron-Leader Wilkes, the Director of Air Services, had been present. Sayers had actually set a trap to catch the man who had been responsible for irregularities at Wigram, tho offender receiving twelve months at the Borstal Institute. Prom that time on Sayers stated that he had not had one minute's peace. He had been made a scapegoat for bringing a thief to justice. "Since that time," said Mr. Healy, "Flight-Lieutenant Denton made life a hell on earth for Sayers." He went on to say that motor-cars at Wigram had been used for tlio private purposes of officers, and on three oeca-1 sions a private aeroplane had been overhauled by Departmental officers without charge. The petitioner hud been accused of taking spare parts out of stores, but.it had been proved on inquiry that Sayers had nothing- to do witli tho disappearance, but that the spare parts had been taken out by officers. Although Savers liii.fl been in t-liarpr: of stores he had not had a key

to the stores, but officers had. Definite charges had been mado to the G.O.C. by Sayers. against Flight-Lieutenant Denton, but an inquiry had been refused. SHOULD HAVE KNOWN BETTER. Mr. J. Hargcst (Government, Invercargill) said that ho was a member of the Defence Committee but had been unable to attend the meeting when the petition was under consideration. He supported the Minister's amendment that the report should bo referred back. They had heard a number of charges which had been made by Sayers against the Defence Department but (hey had to remember that the petitioner was a man. who was under notice that his contract was being terminated. When tho petitioner had attested he had undertaken to obey hia superior officers. If the man had complaints to make ho should havo followed tho usual military channels, but instead of doing that he had chosen to come to Wellington and make all sorts of charges against his superior officers, who had had no opportunity of being present. Mr. Barnard: They should have been tiiere. Mr. Hargest: I have met this man's superior officer and he doesn't know yet what these charges are. When this man Sayers went back to the aerodrome lie broadcast the charges amongst his fellows. Is there going t' be any confidence between a superior officer and a man- in any Department if a man is to have the right to go straight to Parliament and make chargos such as this man has. done and get away with it? Practically every member of the Committee has had military experience and I consider that they should have known better than to have presented such a report. In my opinion it is very wrong for Parliament to allow itself to be used in this way. "SHOT TO PIECES." Mr. J. A. Lee (Labour, Grey Lynn) said tho Committee's report had been made very largely by Government members. Ho had to confess that he thought Mr. Hargest's speech, was anything but judicial. He thought it was advisable that any member in the Civil Service should have the right to approach Parliament if he desired to do so. "Probably becauso I have been a member of the rank and file I havo not the same sublimo reverence for courts of military inquiry as is held by the distinguished colonel who haa just resumed his seat," said Mr. Lee. "Tho old war style was that the private must report to the corporal, the corporal to the sergeant, and so on. A private has tho same chance of getting a good hearing before a general as the rich man has of getting through the eye of a needle. (Laughter.) lam going to suggest that even tho humble private is entitled to have his case heard by a jury of his peers. I don't want an individual to be tried by a jury of colonels. Under such circumstances a private would have to stand to attention with probably a sergeantmajor bawling at him. Under such, circumstances the argument of any man is shot to pieces." The Minister of Finance (the Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates) said that if there was fresh evidence the report should rightly go back to tho Committee. Personally he had tho greatest respect f!or the justice extended to a private in the Army. Mr. Lee: Becauso you were tlio judge. Mr. Coates: May 1 just say that I was not by any means always the judge. Strange as it may seem in, this company, I was tho soldier's friend. I was selected by the soldiers to be their friend. Mr. Lee: Yes, that is true; I admit ' that. ■■■■:■ Mr. Coates said he thought that Army justice worked out fairly well on the whole. It was only reasonable that tho Defence officers should have an opportunity of replying to the charges made against them. CONSIDERABLE LAXITY. The Chairman of the Defence Committee, Mr. H. G. Dickie (Government, Patea) said that he had not the.slightest objection to the matter being reforrcd back to the Committee if there was fresh evidence. At the same time he -wanted to say that there had been considerable laxity on the part of the Defence Department. The petition had been sent to the Department for comment and the Department had sent along the most scratchy report that had ever been presented to a Committee. He did not want to enter into a discussion on military justice. Ho had seen it in operation and some of it was pretty rough and ready. It was regrettable that the member for Invcrcargill was not present at the inquiry, but,ho objected to his coming along and lecturing those who were. Tho report was referred back to the Committee for further consideration.