WIGRAM AIR BASE

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXI, Issue 21934, 18 October 1934, Page 12

WIGRAM AIR BASE

IRREGULARITIES ALLEGED PETITION FROM STOREMAN COMMITTEE URGES INQUIRY DEPARTMENT TO STATE CASE [BT TELEGRAPH SPECIAL REPORTER] WELLINGTON". Wednesday Allegations of irregularities at Wigram Aerodrome, Christchurch, contained in a petition presented to Parliament recently by Leonard Sayers. storeman at Wigrain, and reported on to-day by the Defence Committee, were discussed at length by the Houst*. The committee recommended that the petition should be referred to ths Government for favourable consideration, and that the petitioner should be retained in the service until a magisterial inquiry was held into the alleged irregularities. After discussion, the report was referred back to the committee for reconsideration. Sayers had claimed that his actions in attempting to discover and prevent deficiencies in the stores at the aerodrome, and other irregularities involving wrongful appropriation and use of Government property, were the cause oi" his impending dismissal. He asked for a full inquiry into the circumstances of his case and for reinstatement.

Action Commanded Mr. W. E. Barnard (Labour— Napier) said the committee had acted properly in bringing in such a judicious i finding. The committee had not judged : the matters at issue. The attitude of the Defence Department was peculiar, !in that no effort had been made to present the department's attitude to the committee or to refute the charges made in regard to the working and administration of Wigrara aerodrome. The : committee had a definite impression that airairs at the aerodrome required investigation. Mr. Barnard regretted that the Hon. J. G. Cobbe, Minister of Defence, had not attended the meeting of the committee. Mr. Cobbe, he said, must have known that the question of administration would be ventilated before the committee- "If the petitioner is guilty of anything at all/' added Mr. Barnard, "it is due to his exaggerated sense of duty to the Crown. It seems hard that when a zealous man runs up against his j superiors he should not receive the con- | sidered treatment he deserves. In no ' way does the committee refiect on the Defence Department, but it strongly urges an investigation, not at the hands of a military tribunal, which would be biassed, but before an open-minded magistrate." Minister's Explanation The Minister moved that the matter should be referred back to the committee so the department could bring its evidence forward. He said the petitioner had been engaged by WingCommander S. Grant Dalton, a former Director of Air Services, as fitter and turner for a .term of five years, but it was found that- he was not efficient and he was put into the stores department at the aerodrome. For some time anonymous letters had come to the Auditor-General relating to the aerodrome and its administration, but officers of the department had investigated the charges and found them to be trivial. The charges were almost in line with those the committee had considered. The Minister claimed it was only fair that the department should have an opportunity of replying to the charges laid against it. It was not un- . usual that when a man was dismissed he should make charges against his superiors. Sir. E. F. Healy (Government —Wairau) said charges had been made against Flight-Lieutenant Denton, who had been transferred from' Wigram to Wellington. Denton must have known that Sayers had petitioned Parliament and it would have been helpful if he and Squadron-Leader Wilkes, Director of Air Services, had appeared before the committee. "Made the Scapegoat" '"The trouble began with a whole lot of thieving," said Mr. Healy, "and f Sayers became detective and caught a man red-handed. The man got 12 months in Borstal and Sayers was made the scapegoat for bringing the thief to justice. Denton made it hell on earth for the man. The committee in the circumstances could bring in no other finding and if»the Minister or SquadronLeader Wilkes had been there, the finding would have been no different." Mr. Healy referred to the wholesale use of the department's property, including the use of cars by officers at Wigram. It had been stated that one officer drove his child to school every day in a departmental car, and that it load, been alleged, that a private aeroplane had been overhauled three times by officers without charge and in their own time. It was also claimed that many obsolete parts had been imported from England and that they were lying useless at the aerodrome and that officers had taken stores which Sayers had been accused of taking. The petitioner had no keys to the stores, although he was responsible for looking after them. FlightLieutenans Denton had keys arxl so did the ledger-keeper. Sayers had made definite charges to the officer in command against Denton, but there was no inquiry. Mr. Healy demanded an inquiry by a magistrate, "not. by officers of the department, because we know how that would finish up." An Unsupported Statement Mr. J. Hargest (Government —Invercargili) supported the Minister.. He said the charges were the unsupported statement of a man who was under notice. There was a proper method of making these charges. Sayers had come to Wellington and made charges against his superior officer, who was not present to listen to them. Mr. Barnard: He could have been there. Mr. Hargest: I have met the officer concerned and he does not know officially that Sayers is' charging Mm with these things. , Mr. Hargest declared that it was not proper that a man should go straight to Parliament in a matter like this. Parliament should not allow itself, to be used by a disgruntled, employee. Mr. J. A. Leo (Labour —Grey Lynn) said hb curiosity had been excited as to control methods at the aerodrome and for that reason he favoured the report going back to ths committee. The Minister of Finance. Mr. Coates, urged a similar course of action on the ground that it was only fair to allow the Defence Department to state its position.. Replying, Mr. HI G. Dickie. chairman of the Defence Committee, said; there had been considerable laxity on the- part of the Defence Department. The petition was sent to the department for comment and the statement made to the committee oa the department's behalf was very sketchy. The officer who represented the- department before the committee knew very tittle about the ease.. Mr. Cpbbe'a amendment wju*- carried.