THE LAING INQUIRY

Otago Daily Times, Issue 26274, 4 October 1946, Page 6

THE LAING INQUIRY

Opposition Members’ Protest

(From Our Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, Oct. 3. Requests for a public inquiry into the allegations made by Mr G. Laing, Government inspector of motor vehicles, in a petition to Parliament so that those against whom charges were made could have a propej opportunity of clearing themselves were made by Opposition members after presentation to the House of Representatives to-day of the defence committee’s report on the petition. No recommendation was made by the committee which found that while some unsuitable vehicles were sent from New Zealand to the forces in New Caledonia in January and February 1943 it also found that the men’s lives were not jeopardised because of that. The report added that the petitioner failed to substantiate the extent to which unsuitable vehicles were sent and the Committee, therefore, had no recommendation to make.

In a subsequent discussion, it was stated that the Opposition members of the committee did not agree with the findings of the committee that no recommendation should be made. In his petition, Laing had asked for a public inquiry in order that those responsible for furnishing New Zealand soldiers with worn-out, obsolete vehicles to fight the most ruthless and barbarous foes in history would be dealt with according to the degree of incompetence or guilt established by a proper tribunal. He also asked that those who had been wronged or censured in any way through their efforts to ensure the safety of New Zealand soldiers might have their probity and rectitude publicly reinstated. Disagreement on Recommendations

the Prime Minister did not. One could only ask why. When the fh'st petition was lodged in 1943, the Prime Minister was alleged to have told Laing that he could not remain an employee of the Government and have a petition like that before the House. The present petition was substantially the same as the first, with the addition of four more paragraphs. Yet the petitioner was still in the employ of the Government with the difference that, according to his evidence, he was now doing only two days’ work a month. If the charges made in 1943 were not substantiated in the mind of the Prime Minister, why was Laing not dismissed? Alternatively, if the Prime Minister retained Laing because he thought there was something in his allegations, why was there no complete investigation? The findings of the Perry Committee were not communicated to the petitioner, in spite of the fact that they called on him to apologise to the general officer commanding and the Quartermaster-general for the extravagant language used in his memorandum of 1943. The fact that that was not done must be the responsibility of the Prime Minister. Mr Fraser, who said that Mr Macdonald had made heavy weather of trying to create a scandal, added that he had nothing against Laing, who was exercising his rights as a citizen in petitioning Parliament. Did the Opposition suggest he should be dismissed for that? The reports about an alleged conversation between Laing and himself were fantastic. The Prime Minister said he understood that Laing was going to stand for Parliament. Laing would then have an opportunity of convincing some electors. That was something that would not have been possible for a civil servant before Labour took office. Laing could publish anything he liked except confidential Government documents or say what he liked from a public platform. Laing had served the Government well in his position as inspector of motor vehicles, and it was unfortunate that his differences with other departmental heads had impaired his

The chairman of the committee, Mr R. M. Macfarlane (Govt., Christchurch South) said the committee was unanimous in regard to its report, except that part of it stating that the committee had no recommendation to make The Opposition, he said, could not agree with that part of the report. The Opposition held that the only way the petitioner’s statements could be checked was by a public inquiry so that statements could be made on oath. The vehicles were only unsuitable because they were not of the usual army type, and when they were sent to New Caledonia they were to be used only for training purposes. Mr Macfarlane said it was clearly established that the petitioner had made only a cursory examination of these vehicles and had not gone to the trouble to make an examination of them mechanically. It was shown that Brigadier H. E. Avery, who was then quarterihaster-gcneral, had, in association with General Puttick, taken all steps to see that suitable vehicles were sent to the Pacific. When the men did go on active service at Guadalcanar and Vella Lavella, they were fully equipped and there had been no evidence to disprove that. They were equipped up to full military standard. So far as the request for a public inquiry was concerned, the petitioner had another way of obtaining that apart from the present inquiry, Mr Macfarlane said. Accusations could be made publicly and if they were not true, those people he accused could seek, redress in the courts.

Mr T. J. Watts (Oppn., Riccarton): Do you want him to make a libellous statement? Mr T. L. Macdonald (Oppn., Mataura) said the history of the petition was a glaring example of Government procrastination. The extremely grave charges originally made by the petitioner early in 1943 merited immediate and serious consideration. The fact that three and a-half years had been allowed to pass without a proper attempt to investigate was the responsibility of the Prime Minister.' Mr Mr Fraser interjected that an investigation had been made at the time. Mr Macdonald: Then why is this petition presented now? Mr Fraser: We cannot read his mma. Mr Macdonald said that a small committee had been set up in July, 1943 but its findings showed that it had'made no real attempt to grapple with the charges. The petitioner had laid before the Defence Committee copies of memoranda sent by him to the Prime Minister early in 1943. One of these alleged neglect and incompetence in Army control of motor vehicles and undue influence on Army vehicle orders on the part of the Ford Motor Company. It also referred, among other things, to a secret agreement between the Ford Company and a certain business man regarding commission paid on Government purchases of motor vehicles. The memorandum was couched in very strong terms but no investigation had yet been made into the alleged circumstances The Opposition members of the Defence Committee felt it necessary to move in the Committee the following resolution:

efficiency. Laing first made his allegations during the war,, when it would have been wrong to allow the army to be harassed by them or public attention focused in a trying period on statements whicli lacked substantiation. The allegations had not been couched in restrained terms and after his conversations with Laing he had decided the best way to clear up the matter was to send the papers to a committee. The report made by his committee was not handed to Laing for the reason that he (Mr Fraser) was not concerned with him, but only with the allegation that unsuitable vehicles which might have endangered the lives of the men were sent to the Pacific when suitable vehicles were available. The committee did not find these allegations proved or that there were sufficient'grounds to justify a further inquiry. If Laing wanted his allegations tested further he could make his charges openly and those concerned could act accordingly. The main point in Laing’s allegations centred on whether men’s lives had been endangered, and the report of the committee satisfied him they were not. He did not therefore think it necessary to pursue the matter further and he took full responsibility for that. Mr Fraser said Laing had drawn his attention to an arrangement between the agent for the vehicles and the company by which commission was paid. He had stopped this practice. He could not say it was an unorthodox practice. It was one of the evidences of private enterprise. There was no question of it being a secret commission. Laing’s allegations involving the honour of the former quartermaster-gene-ral, Brigadier Avery, had been disproved, said Mr Fraser, and so had the suggestion that a man in Brigadier Avery's position would be a party to withholding vehicles for the purpose of sale to a company for private and mutual gain. Opportunity for Defence Mr C. G. E. Harker (Oppn., Waipawa) said he felt that a number of people who had had their reputations seriously attacked should not be-left without the opportunity of defending themselves publicly, however wild the accusations made against them might have been. Mr Fraser said that, if any of the persons concerned intimated to the Government that they xelt aggrieved and wanted a public inquiry he would be in favour of giving it to them. Mr Harker said he felt sure that some of them would desire that. He had never heard more serious charges than those made by Laing He believed that they were wild and irresponsible, but they were made by a man in a position of great authority. Laing continued to-day in a position of authority, and the public was entitled to infer that there might be something in the charges. Mr Fraser: What grounds would you have for sacking a man if he is doing his job, simply because he exercises his rights as a citizen? Mr Harker said that a man in a responsible position who. during a war, applied, to highly-placed army officers such terms as “ traitor,” failed to justify his action, and was of such a temperament that he would not apologise, automatically disqualified himself from holding office. If he remained in authority, people would be justified in thinking that there must be some truth in his charges. Brigadier Avery Cleared

“ This Committee finds that while some unsuitable vehicles were sent from New Zealand to the forces in New Caledonia in January' and February, 1943, the men’s lives were not jeopardised because of that and the petitioner failed to substantiate the extent ■ to which unsuitable vehicles were sent. In view, however, of the serious allegations by the petitioner or waste and inefficiency in respect of Army transport in New Zealand, of the receipt of a secret commission by an individual in connection with sales of motor vehicles to the Government and of improper influence on the part, of a leading motor company alleged to have paid secret commission, the committee recommends that a magisterial public inquiry be held to investigate all the charges made by the petitioner so that all parties whose reputations may have been called into question may have an opportunity of refuting the charges made against them.” Mr Macdonald said that that resolution was defeated in the Committee but the Opposition members still considered it their duty to ask that the matters mentioned be investigated. Several things arising out of the evidence required explanation. Laing was armed with letters from Majorgeneral Duigan dated 1939. from the Prime Minister in 1941, from the Army Secretary in 1940, and from the Minister of Supply in 1942 giving him the right of entry to army camps and Gov-' ernment Departments. On the other hand. Brigadier Avery, in evidence, said that soon after he took office in 1940, relations became strained and he instructed his officers that Laing had no connection whatever with the army and that they were forbidden to deal with him. The Prime Minister must have known of the strained relations, but he did nothing to improve the position. The evidence was that six to eight weeks after Laing’s memorandum of April. 1943, when he asked what was being done, the Prime Minister said that Cabinet thought his reports were terrible and that something drastic would be done about him unless he could substantiate them. Mr Fraser: That’s simply not true The First Inquiry

Mr Osborne said that Brigadier Avery had effectively cleared himself before the committee, and the Government. and Opposition members all agreed that ne had exonerated himself. Some of the vehicles sent overseas were actually brand-new trucks, but despite that they were reported as unsuitable, as any vehicle that was not a four-wheel drive vehicle was unsuitable for army conditions.

Mr Macdonald said that six weeks later when Laing petitoned Parliament, the Prime Minister, according to the evidence, sent for him and said, “ You understand that you cannot remain an employee of the Government and have a petition like this before the House?” Mr Fraser: That’s a deliberate falsehood. ~ , Mr Macdonald said the evidence was that on being assured that a committee was being set up to investigate, Laing agreed to withdraw the petition. The committee consisted of Sir William Perry (chairman). Mr A Hamilton (Oppn., Wallace), and Mr A. G. Osborne (Govt., Onehunga). A perusal of its findings showed that it did riot investigate the charges extensively The findings were not communicated to the petitioner, who learnt what they were only during the proceedings of the Defence Committee a few days ago. Mr Macdonald said both sides wanted a full and open inquiry, but apparently

Mr Watts quoted from an earlier draft report by Mr Osborne as follows: I believe there could be no reasonable room for doubt that Laing’s charges as to unsuitable vehicles being sent away have de.finitley been established. I believe we have a clear duty to move for a thorough investigation of this matter in order to establish whether (1) it was necessary for such vehicles to have been sent away, (2) whether better vehicles were available and could have been sent, (3) whelher new vehicles were available or could have been made available within a short time, or any other matters which might throw some light on this unfortunate occurrence.”

It had been suggested, Mr Watts said, that if Laing wanted to ventilate his comlaints further he should make statements outside the House which would involve him in an action for libel. Laing’s letters to the Prime Minister, however, were so strong that, if not correct, they were libellous. The report was talked out by the tea adjournment.