WITHOUT ESTIMATE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 26233, 17 August 1946, Page 8

WITHOUT ESTIMATE

SALE OF MOTOR PARTS

EVIDENCE AT INQUIRY

BOARD MANAGER'S ADMISSION

(P.A.) WELLINGTON, Aug. 16. Continuing his evidence to-day at the Commission of Inquiry into the disposal of vehicles by the War Assets Realisation Board, the manager of the board, Brigadier H. E. Avery, under cross-examination by Mr W. E. Leicester, representing four members of Parliament, said that his resignation had been the result of his resentment at the police inquiries instituted by the Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, and the implied criticism of the board. Witness had made up his mind that Archibalds, Limited, had overbid as soon as he saw the figure of £65,252 for the Dodges and Jeeps. It had not been his function to call the Minister’s attention to that opinion. There was at that time no question of Archibalds wanting release from the contract. He did not recollect Archibald’s principals having told him specifically on March 20 that they intended to carry out their contract. Took a Risk Asked by Mr Leicester why, in view of the conditions of the tender, he had allowed Archibald’s to proceed with their contract without having then received the balance of the amount of the tender, witness said he had received a satisfactory assurance from Archibald’s bankers that the balance would be forthwith available. Witness agreed that he personally had taken a risk in allowing Archibald’s to proceed in the physical absence of the balance and added that he would do it again. Whether or not such action was in conformity with his duty to the board, in a job like that they had to take risks or they would never get the work done. The tender of Gillies and Sons of £21,010 for the G.M.C. trucks had been considered after it was decided to accept £63,252 by Archibald’s for the Dodges and Jeeps. No appraisal had been made of “ scrap metal and scrap parts," said witness to the commissioner, Mr J. R. Bartholomew. He said the parts had been thrown out by reconditioning factories as unserviceable. After Mr Bartholomew had read a list of the parts concerned and commented that 14 axle assemblies had brought £l5O, witness affirmed his opinion that it was scrap metal as far as disposal was concerned. He did not consider his regard for it as “a compost heap of junk” or the failure to secure a valuation before disposal was contrary to his duty to make the best deal possible on the Government’s behalf. Disposal of Scrap To Mr Leicester, witness said the decision to decline tenders for scrap and revert to a sale at £ls a ton was approved by the Minister and confirmed by the board. On March 23 Gillies and Sons, Ltd., had bought three tons at £ls a ton. On March 26 the board, knowing that, had sold the remainder of the 200 tons for £SOO, which was more than double the highest tender. Selling by the ton, the board found that purchasers “picked the eyes ” out of a heap and left junk. Gillies paid £ls a ton only for selected items. The United States authorities were prepared to dump the lot If the board had been aware of the purchase on March 22 it would not necessarily have questioned the bulk sale four days later. Under further cross-examination by Mr Leicester, witness said the board at a meeting in March adopted selling recommendation to revert to selling scrapped motor parts for £ls a ton. The Minister approved of the recommendation. i

Mr Leicester asked: In view of the fact that you had more knowledge of the motor trade than any member of the board, would not your advice have been most helpful to them? 1 Witness: No. I did not consider it necessary.

The commissioner: Why? Witness: Because the Americans advised they were scrapped parts which were unserviceable.

No Legal Advice Taken

• Cross-examined by the Solicitorgeneral, Mr H. E. Evans, witness said the board had before it the sales and valuations which had been made. It did not occur to him to take legal advice regarding letting Archibald out of his original tender.

The commissioner: It is most unfortunate that there is no reference to this in the minutes. You were dealing with a mere matter of £60,000. Witness, in reply to the commissioner, said that after a letter from Archibald’s solicitors had been received he expressed the opinion that Archibald should be released. The commissioner: Was no concern expressed by any member of - the board concerning your action affecting a contract for £60,000? Witness: No.

The commissioner: Members of the board were equally responsible, and I would like to know if they all endorsed your recommendation. Witness: Yes, they endorsed it.j The commissioner said he was • prepared to accept the evidence of the witness concerning what took place at the meeting of the board on March 26 when Archibald was released from his contract, but if any other member of the board desired to give evidence on the matter he could do so. The commission will be resumed at 10.30 a.m. on Monday.