Primary Production Councils and Appeals

Manawatu Times, Volume 68, Issue 60, 12 March 1943, Page 6

Primary Production Councils and Appeals

There was a rather heated interlude during the hearing of a case before the Armed Forces Appeal Board at Feilding yesterday. An appellant appealing for the retention of the services of a reservist until the end of June, told the Court that he had advertised for relief labour with* out result. He had 50 cows and 1600 sheep to look after on his farm and he was unfit to do any work. There was no other labour offering. “1 don’t think I am asking for too much” said the appellant. Mr* Worthington (Crown representative): “Well everyone else thinks you Appellant: That’s a remarkable statement for you to make. Mr. Wbi'thington: Well, we will see. Mr. Worthington stated at the close of appellant’s case that the military authorities opposed any further extension of leave for the reservist concerned. The matter hud been referred to the Primary Production Council which did not recommend the application. In the opinion of the Council, appellant had not made any genuine effort to release this man. Mr. J. Graham (counsel for appellant): How does the Primary Production Council know what appellant lias done? They cannot know any tiling about it. Appellant has staled on oath that he has made many efforts to secure labour to enable this man to be released. I protest against such reports. They are confidential, i know, and I am not allowed to crossexamine those responsible for making the report. I had a case not so long ago when the chairman, who signed the report, which was an adverse one, had not spoken to the appellant concerned for ten years, and it turned out that he was the enemy of the appellant. What reliance can be placed on such reports? The chairman (Mr. Lee): The Board is not very satisfied with appellant’s attitude. Counsel: He had advertised for labour. The Chairman: There is no evidence as to how he advertised. Counsel: We have had evidence that he advertised in the “Times’’ for a single or a married man to look after 50 cows and 1600 sheep. The chairman: The Primary Production Council says that appellant has made no genuine effort. Mr. Worthington: In their opinion, appellant had made no genuine effort. Mr. Graham asked that the report be read again so as to clear up exactly what the report did say, but Mr. Worthington refused to read it. Counsel: I challenge the report and the Crown representative refuses to read it again. I consider that most unfair. Why can’t we have it read again. Does he want to keep it for some museum? 1 protest most emphatically. The chairman: 1 expect it would have been read. Counsel went on to state that evidence had been given that appellant

was a very sick man and the Board had his sworn evidence. The chairman: That’s all. Counsel said he had seen many cases in which the Board had accepted evidence of appellants having advertised without asking for the advertisement to be produced. Later Mr. Worthington read the report and the Board decided to reserve its decision after Counsel had remarked that if leave was not: granted, the production of the country would suffer.