Loss Of Documents

Northern Advocate, 22 December 1948, Page 8

Loss Of Documents

The documents handed by the acting Prime Minister (Mr Nash) to the Press and published yesterday were taken from a departmental car in his charge near Parliament Buildings on November 26, said Mr Holmes, in a statement last night. Mr Holmes said he reported to the police on November 27 that his satchel and departmental camera equipment had been stolen from the car. The police told him yesterday that they had still not been found. “In view of the serious allegations that have been made,” said Mr Holmes, “I wish to make this statement. “It is a matter of some interest and, I will show, a matter of some concern to everyone as to how Mr Nash obtained the original copies of correspondence from myself to Mr Lewin and as well the resolutions supposedly in Mr Lewin’s handwriting. “The facts are these. On the evening of November 26, at about six o'clock, I parked a departmental car which contained my satchel and a good deal of camera equipment outside Parliament Buildings, just a few yards from the Bowen Street entrance and directly opposite it. “On emerging some time later I found that the car had been wheeled around to the back of Parliament Buildings and that my satchel and movie camera, worth some £250 and the property of the department, had been removed.

“The satchel contained mostly departmental matters and. as well, some

personal matters, among which were the documents referred tc

“Promptly on the following morning I reported the matter in some detail to the police and also, of course, to Ihe department. “Yesterday I asked the police if they nad traced any of these articles. “They said they had not.

“It should be noted that the theft occurred under most peculiar circumstances on the very evening of the day on which it was proposed to held the stopwork meeting. By means which Mr Nash does not choose to disclose, the published documents found their way into the hands of the acting Prime Minister. “The rather rough and ready idiom employed in my letter to Mr Lewin is not to be taken too literally. After all, I did spend five years in the Navy. “Since this matter has appeared in the Press, I have been suspended from the Public Service pending an inquiry.

“The reason given for this suspension (which is immediate) by the acting head of the Information Section of the Prime Minister’s Department (Mr C. H. Williams) is, in his own words, ‘in view of statements appearing in the Press this morning.’ “I would put the following questions:

“(1) How did Mr Nash obtain these documents? “(2) There has been no attack on my ability as a public servant, nor can it be shown that I have ever at any time been instrumental in holding up the flow of production at the Government film studios.

“In fact, no stopwork meeting was ever held.

“Why, then, should I be suspended? “Because I am an active trade unionist?

“Or is it because Mr Nash hopes to drag a large red whale across the path of the Public Service claims? “(3) Has the acting Prime Minister, on the other hand, any rights under lay to publish copies of the private correspondence of ordinary law-abid-ing people? My permission was never asked for their publication. Why didn’t he hand them over to the police for return to me? “(4) Since when has a Prime Minister, acting or otherwise, earned the right to meddle in the domestic affairs of a trade union?

“(5) An inquiry into this whole business will be held some time in

the future. #' “If Mr Nash wants an honest inquiry, why does he try to prejudice the whole case in the eyes of public servants and the public by publishing these documents and alleging a Communist conspiracy?

“Finally, I may say that I am contemplating legal action in the matter.”