WAR VEHICLES INQUIRY

Greymouth Evening Star, 19 September 1946, Page 9

WAR VEHICLES INQUIRY

BRIGADIER’S EVIDENCE TO COMMITTEE ANSWER TO LAING’S CHARGES (P.A.) WELLINGTON, Sept. 19. Before George Laing made his charges to the Prime Minister on April 1, 1943. he was in possession of the full facts and knew why the 486 allegedly new vehicles could not be supplied to the Third Division, declared a former Quartermaster-Gen-eral, Brigadier H. E. Avery, resuming his evidence to-day. before the Defence Committee of the House ofRepresentatives, which is hearing Laing’s petition. Avery said the Ford Company entirely refuted Laing’s allegation that their representative early in 1943 booking orders for civilian sale’s, on knowledge derived from the Army that the 486 vehicles would be released for civilian sale. The disposal of those vehicles was, in any case not in the Army’s hands, but was ’the responsibility of the Vehicles Disposal Board. “A Mare’s Nest.”

Avery said that on January 19, 1943 he wrote to the Minister of Defence suggesting that the whole matter appeared to be a mare’s nest, stumbled upon by Laing. Dealing with the charge that condemned and unserviceable vehicles were sent to the Pacific, endangering the lives of Third Division men. Avery said that no condemned or unserviceable vehicles were sent. The worst that could be said was that some vehicles of a commercial type sent for temporary use had done a considerable mileage, but mileage alone did not make them unserviceable. In a report he made to the Prime Minister on February 1, 1943, he showed that of 2523 vehicles then on the Third Division’s establishment, 881 new ones had gone forward and 783 new ones were awaiting shipment, while 645 used ones had gone forward and 214 used ones awaited shipment. Of the used vehicles sent all had been inspected and passed by Third Division officers, except 80 vehicles of two battalions which were attached to the Division. Those vehicles had been passed by other Army officers, but were to have been replaced by new vehicles. This proved impracticable before embarkation, but was done in New Caledonia. “Totally Irresponsible.” In a letter dated February 6, Major-General Barrowclough wrote to Avery, saying that any suggestion that unsafe vehicles had been foiwarded was totally irresponsible. Avery read further correspondence between himself and Major-General Barrowclough, in which the latter said that junior officers who had complained about vehicles acted sincerely, but did not know the full picture and were unaware that the Division had all the 6x4 trucks it needed. Not Justified. Avery, continuing his evidence, said that Major-General Barrowclough in his correspondence declared that junior officers’ critical view of the transport supplied was not justified by the facts. MajoiGeneral Barrowclough’s own co ’ l_ corn was onty that used vehicles might have been supplied when, according to reports, new army Transports were being issued to home defence units, but Barrowclough was satisfied on investigation chat the Third Division had absolute preference over home defence units. Bairowclough said the four officers had made complaints were., conscientious soldiers ■ and, although the result of their unfounded statements was mischievous, their intent was not. Earrowclough had never doubted his (Avery’s) personal desire to do his utmost for the Third Division, but had questioned, until fully acquainted of the position, whether subordinates might be failing to implement Avery’s policy. Avery said that other than the 486 vehicles referred to, there were no surplus vehicles in New Zealand in early 1943. The army at the outbreak 'of the war had 62 vehicles at its disposal, a figure which rose by impressment, purchase and other means to 30,298 by the end of 1943. Orders Placed Overseas. “I recognised, probably far better than Laing, the desirability of fourwheel drive vehicles for the army,” said Avery. In December, 1941, long before the despatch of the Third Division was contemplated, the Army had ordered more than 5000 vehicles in Canada and the United States, but at the end of 1942, before they began to arrive for .assembly, he was satisfied it would be possible to equip the division fully with vehicles before it moved to the. battle area and that proved to be the case. When used vehicles were supplied to the division for temporary use, he knew that the division would not be in action for some months, but that was not known to Laing or to those officers who complained about the vehicles. One of the officers who complained had subsequently admitted that cn arrival at New Caledonia his unit was immediately supplied with new vehicles and did not see the old ones again. When the division finally moved forward, it left behind in New Caledonia a considerable surplus of army type, vehicles. *

COUNSEL STATES CASE FOR ARMY (P.A.) WELLINGTON, Sept. 18. The hearing of evidence on the petition of George Laing, who is seeking an inquiry into the condition of the motor vehicles sent to the Third Division in the Pacific, was continued by the Defence Committee of the Housb of Representatives this afternoon. , Mr T P. Cleary, for the Army Department, before calling evidence, said- “It is essential to distinguish between three types of vehicles supplied to the Army: Firstly, the. heavy type, known gs 6 x 4’s; secondly, the lighter type, known as 4 x 4’s; and thirdly the commercial type vehicles, known as 4 x 2’s, which were not designed for Army use The Armv was at no stage shoit of 6 x 4 s Mr. Laing’s complaint was: First y, that commercial yehices (4x 2s) were supplied to tne Ihird Division when 4 x 4’S were available; and, secondly, that faulty 4 x 2's were supplied when new ones were available ” C Mr Cleary said that at the end of 1924 4 x'4’s were just starting'to arrive in New Zealand for assembly nd at the time when the Third Dh isSn sailed for New Caledonia, it ted to take with it a large nlunber