EXPENSIVE COMMISSION.

Hawera Star, Volume XLV, 29 August 1925, Page 5

EXPENSIVE COMMISSION.

LYSNAR INQUIRY

COST £3500.

(by TELEGRAPH —PRESS ASSOCIATION.) WELLINGTON, Aug. 28. The fact that the Lysnar meat inquiry had cost £3500 aroused a storm of criticism in the House to-night, when the vote of £368,297 on the Estimates for the Department of Agriculture was considered.

Mr J. A. Lee (Auckland East) pro-, tested against the amount spent in connection with the Lysnar meat inquiry. That money would have been much more profitably employed in other directions, such as, for instance, experimental work to determine the best manner of treating different classes of land in the country. ' Mr E. A. Ransom (Pahiatua) added his protest against £3500 being wasted on the inquiry into the sal© of the Poverty Bay meat works, the effect of which was merely to whitewash the Minister. A Royal Commission could have been much more profitably employed to discover how best to d eve lon production and the marketing thereof. The Hon. A. D. McLeod said the Royal Commission was necessary not so much to clear the Minister as to see whether the Meat Board set up by Parliament was functioning in a manner beneficial to the country. He agreed that the cost was very large, but the inquiry in the circumstances was necessary. Mr H. E. Holland (Leader of the Labour Party) urged that in cases where grave charges were made an inquiry should follow, but in this case the cost was very much too high. He would not suggest that the member for Gisborne should be required to pay the costs, though it was in the power of Parliament to order such a course being followed. The Hon. W. Nosworthy said the member for Gisborne (Mr Lysnar) had made serious charges involving not only him, but the Government and others as well, and he went so far that he (Mr Nosworthy) felt goaded into declaring that a Royal Commission would inquire into the whole of the facts, and the late Prim© Minister backed him up. Personally, he was not ashamed of anything he had done, and he courted the fullest investigation. Mr Lysnar’s charges were -so grave that only an independent and exhaustive inquiry could clear them up. When he had. the information in his possession he would give the House details of the cost of the inquiry. Mr Masters contended the Minister should be able to give the House particulars of the expenditure of the vote of £3500, the cost of the commission, 1 which had been simply a happy hunting ground of well-paid K.C.’s. He Would move to reduce the vote by £IOOO as a protest against the money being voted without information. He asked whether it was proposed to pay Mr Lysnar’s expenses. The Minister replied that it was not intended to pay Mr Lysnar’s expenses. The Prime Minister said it was a mistake to suppose the Government Was paying the whole of the counsel employed. The Government would pay for the one it employed, and the Meat Board and the bank would pay for their own. It might be right to pay Mr. Lysnar’s expenses, but it must be remembered that- he made serious charges, and every public man must recognise he had some responsibility in such matters. 4 . ' - Later the Prime Minister said he had obtained some particulars from the secretary of the commission, which he would give to the House. He was not able to say what fees were paid to counsel for the Crown and the accountants, because the Attorney-General had' that information, but the commissioners’ fees were £8 8s per day, and there were three commissioners. The chairman worked for 80 days, and his fees would amount to about £7OO. One other commissioner would draw £412 and the other £3BO. Travelling expenses amounted to £2OO. Six reporters at 31s 6d per day would absorb about £SOO, and the secretary’s chargee were £260, making a total of £2452. Not allowing for Mr Lysnar’s expenses he thought £3500 would cover the cost of the commission.

The Hon. J. A. Hanan (Invercargill) said the whole thing was a shocking exposure of the waste of public money. Mr J. It. Corrigan (Patea) declared that when the final bill came in the cost would be more- like £SOOO than £3500. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr G. W. Forbes) said the Government was open to the severest criticism for employing an expensive commission when the whole matter could have been as well settled by a Parliamentary committee.

At 12.30 a.m. a division was taken on Mr Masters’ amendment, which was defeated by 27 votes to 21, and shortly after 1 a.m. the vote was passed.