BOARD DISMISSED

New Zealand Herald, Volume 81, Issue 25001, 18 September 1944, Page 4

BOARD DISMISSED

ARMY VEHICLES MYSTERIOUS ACTION. NO PUBLIC STATEMENT Important questions regarding the disposal of Army motor vehicles to civilian purchasers were not mentioned during the prolonged debates in the House of Representatives last week. Ministers and members concentrated their attention upon allegations that certain officers had purchased vehicles at prices below the valuations, and after discussing tho matter for the greater part of two days, the House agreed to the Prime Minister's suggestion that the Public Accounts Committee should investigate the alleged irregularities. Statements were made by Ministers that the Government had had about 10,000 motor vehicles for disposal and had by tho end of last May disposed of over 6000 trucks, cars and motor-cycles. Yet nothing whatever was said about the methods adopted by the Government in preparing for and carrying out this important undertaking. This aspect of the matter was mentioned by the Auditor-General, who quoted from a report upon an investigation of sales made at a large disposal centre as fol-lows:—-"The investigation has disclosed that little information exists on the various files that have been inspected relative to the matters under inquiry. It is emphasised that the investigation would have been materially simplified had the files contained records of the authorised appointment of officials concerned, the policy in respect of the disposal and valuation of vehicles, and other matters relevant to the inquiry. The records of the valuations made were most unsatisfactory, and the information contained in them scanty." The Government's Policy

There is evidence that the Government did decide upon a policy in respect of the disposal of vehicles and did create an organisation to carry out that policy. There lias never been any public explanation of changes that may have been made in the original policy and there has been very little publicity about the operations of the original organisation. An announcement was made by the Minister of Supply, Mr Sullivan, on April 27. 1943, that the Government had set up a Vehicles Disposal Board under the chairmanship of the Commissioner of Supply, Mr F. R. Picot. to dispose of used vehicles through trade channels. Mr Sullivan said the vehicles would be valued by Government valuers and there would be no price inflation on account of war influences. The first sale was held in Christchurch extending over four days from May 20; the first sale in Auckland was on June 9; and subsequently sales were held at other centres throughout the Dominion. Early in August there were complaints that prices were being fixed arbitrarily and at fictitious rates. In October there was published protest by the annual meeting of the New Zealand Motor Trade Association against "the unbusinesslike methods" used in the disposal of Army vehicles. The text of the association's resolution was communicated to the Prime Minister, the Minister of Supply, and the Minister of Transport, and later to the press for publication.

Short-lived Board The motor trade did not refer to the Vehicles Disposal Board. Indeed, there is no record of any public reference to that board since the Minister's announcement of its creation. The explanation is simple. On April 27, 1943, Mr Sullivan announced that the Government had decided to set up the board: by the end of May, 1943, the board had ceased to exist. The historv of Army vehicles disposal begins in November, 1942, when the Quartermaster - General informed the Supply Council that the Army would have surplus vehicles for disposal. About the middle of February. 1943, the War Cabinet recommended that a disposals board should be established and on March 1 the Minister of Supply approved the personnel for the Army Vehicles Disposal Board as follows: —■ The Commissioner of Supply, Mr F. R. Picot (chairman), the Secretary of the Treasury, Mr B. C. Asliwin (or his deputy); Mr D. A. Ewen, a member of the Supply Council; the Commissioner of Transport, Mr G. L. Laurenson (or his deputy); and a member of the New Zealand Motor Trade Federation. Mr E. H. Langford was appointed secretary and Messrs G. Laing and H. Benge, technical and valuation advisers. An army officer was also nominated with Messrs Laing and Benge, but was not available. The Motor Trade Federation nominated Mr H. Anderson, of Wellington, as its representative; subsequently, the secretary of the federation was associated with Mr Anderson. Inspections and Valuations

The hoard immediately made full preparations for tlie disposal of vehicles as they were received from the army. It designed a system of detailed reports iijk)!! the condition of every vehicle, with valuations by valuers at four centres. These reports were to he forwarded to the board's valuers in Wellington, and their approval was necessary before sales could be made. The board's proceedings were apparently approved by the War Cabinet, for the actual disposals were delayed until the War .Cabinet fixed the rates of commission to be allowed to dealers. There can be no doubt about the basis of valuation. Instructions issued to dealers stated that "all vehicles will be sold at the retail nrice decided upon by the Government Valuation Committee. Any attempt to sell a vehicle at a higher price than that fixed by the Governvent Valuation Committee will bo an offence." But the policy and the methods formulated by the board were not carried into operation. What actually happened has never been explained. It is known that immediately after the first sales in Cliristchurch, members of the board were informed that it had been disbanded and that the Minister of Supply had instructed the Commissioner of Supply to control the disposal of vehicles. Questions to be Answered There is therefore good reason for saying that an inquiry regarding the purchase of a dozen vehicles by army officers is not sufficient to restore public confidence in the Government's methods of disposing of army vehicles. Other pertinent questions have been raised. Who authorised the holding of the sale in Cliristchurch before the board was disbanded and who fixed the valuations for that sale? Who disbanded the Vehicles Disposal Board which was established by direction of the War Cabinet? Why was there no public announcement that the board had been disbanded? Other questions have been asked regarding the methods that have been followed since the disbanding of the hoard, especially the methods bv which priorities have been determined. It may also bo recalled that on June 2, 1944, the Government announced the appointment of a War Assets .Realisation Board. The personnel of that board includes three members of the Vehicles Disposal Board—Messrs Ashwin, Picot and Ewen. The premature and peremptory dismissal of the Vehicles Disposal Board —before it had sold a single vehicle—may have been caused b.v influences or circumstances against which the War Assets Realisation Board will be better armed. It has never been suggested that it will control future disposals of motor vehicles, though there is no apparent reason for excluding them from its jurisdiction. The magnitude of the responsibility entrusted to the new board and the greater opportunity for "irregularities" if the board's control is avoided emphasise the need for reasonable publicity regarding its operations so that tho _ public may bo assured that it is still in existence.