CARS DISPOSAL

Greymouth Evening Star, 15 December 1944, Page 7

CARS DISPOSAL

MR. BARCLAY’S PURCHASE.

WELLINGTON, December 14. The debate on the report of the Public Accounts Committee on its inquiry into matters raised by the last annual report of the AuditorGeneral was resumed in the House to-day. Speakers continued to discuss circumstances surrounding the sale of Army vehicles in Christchurch. Discussion became animated when Mr. Goosman (Nat., Waikato) referred to the purchase of an Army car by Hon. J. G. Barclay, formerly Minister of Agriculture, and now N.Z. High Commissioner in Australia. Mr. Goosman said it was laid down by the Government that when Army vehicles were disposed of, they should be available only to returned men who had a recommendation from a Rehabilitation Committee, to Government Departments, and to a few other high priorities, such as doctors, but were not to be available for the civilians generally. Mr. Barclay was able to go to an Auckland car park and get a car. He (Mr. Goosman) had asked the Commissioner of Supply, Mr. Picot, who gave an instruction enabling Mr. Barclay to obtain a car. Mr. Picot replied that it was the Minister of Supply. Mr. Goosman proceeded to describe what he alleged to be another instance of a car being wrongly obtained. This was an undischarged serviceman, ’ who had no right to obtain a car, but by using political patronage which was available, he got a car in Auckland on instructions ’phoned from Wellington. The price, which was £2OO, was reduced to £ 175, and he,was given the serviceman’s discount of 15 per cent., bringing the price to £l4B. Mr. Nash pointed • out that the Public Accounts Committee had agreed to refer these two transactions back to the Auditor-General. They were, however, completely honest transactions. They were on a par with a case that he would refer to, a case in which Mr. Goosman himself and the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Holland, were both a party to. It was the buying of an Army truck. Their transaction was in perfect order, but it was no different from Mr. Barclay’s transaction.

Mr. Nash said: Mr. Barclay was entitled to purchase the car, because he had lost "the use of his Ministerial car, and his own private car had been impressed earlier. Mr. Barclay came to see me. He said that the price that he was asked to pay for an Armv car was too high, taking into account the price that was paid for the car that was impressed from him. But I told him that I was unable to do anything about it. An Opposition Member: There were thousands of people like that. 1 Mr. Nash explained that Mr. Barclay then went to Mr. Picot with his complaint that he was being asked to pay too much for the car being released to him. Nevertheless, he paid for the car in l Wellington, before taking delivery of it in Auckland. Continuing Mr. Nash said that when he inspected the records of the Army vehicles that were purchased he found that S. G. Holland Ltd, purchased a truck for £7O, while another entry in the book showed the purchase of a van by S. G. Holland for £3O. Later, a valuer, who had been before the Committee in connection with other matters, had explained that this latter entry should have been in the name of S. E. Holland, who is a brother of the Leader of the Opposition. Mr. Nash said: “It is most unfair to malign one of the most honest men who have ever been in this House.” Mr. Goosman: I was saying nothing against Mr. Barclay. I blame the Government. MR. HOLLAND’S DISCLAIMER Mr. Holland said, in explanation of the transactions referred to by Mr. Nash, that the. simple fact was that S. G. Holland, Ltd., never bought a truck. It happened that his own and his brother’s signatures were very similar. The two entries in the records would look alike because they were both made by the same man. His brother purchased a van. It was solely for its tyres. The truck mentioned was not bought by S. G. Holland, Ltd. Mr. Nash: It is recorded Holland. — The record is wrong. Mr. Holland, said that Mr. Goosman and himself were associated in farming operations, in the name of[ “S. G. Holland, Ltd.” They had wanted a chassis for use on a farm, behind a tractor. He asked a valuer to keep a watch for a suitable old truck. This valuer obtained a truck from the Army disposal area. He brought the truck home to his (Mr. Holland’s) place in Christchurch. The truck was absolutely useless for the purpose which they had in mind. “I never bought it. I never paid anything for it. I had nothing to do with it. In collecting it from the Army, car park, the valuer had given the name of “S. G. Holland, Ltd.,” said Mr. Holland.

Mr. Nash: Did you send the four wheels and chassis back? Mr. Holland: I don’t know what happened about it. I never returned it, or had anything to do with it at any time. Mr. Eraser: There is nothing more unworthy than to try to make out that Mr. Barclay was guilty of dishonourable conduct. When Mr. Barclay ' was defeated at the polls, he started looking round for a farm, so that he could resume farming, and it would have been a miserable attitude to adopt to have refused him a car, after his own car had been impressed by the Army. Mr. Fraser said that the matters they were discussing were trivial, and only microscopic minds would make a fuss about them.. The Committee had found that there had been no dishonesty involved at all.

Mr. Algie (Nat., Remuera), said there was no question of dishonesty. The Opposition charged the Government with priority for those who had a political pull, and who secured cars while other citizens with equal rights were unable to get cars. The debate was continued until a motion to table the report of the Committee was carried at 5.30.