CAR BOUGHT BY MR BARCLAY

Southland Times, Issue 25547, 15 December 1944, Page 4

CAR BOUGHT BY MR BARCLAY

Disposal Of Army Vehicles CRITICISM IN HOUSE (P.A.) WELLINGTON, December 14. The purchase of an Army car by Mr J. G. Barclay, formerly Minister of Agriculture and now High Commissioner in Australia, was warmly debated in the House of Representatives today. Strong criticism of the sale of the vehicle to Mr Barclay was expressed by the Opposition during the discussion of the Public Accounts Committee’s report on the questions raised in the last annual report of the Controller and Auditor-General.

Mr W. S. jGoosman (Nat., Waikato) said it was laid down by the Government that when Army vehicles were disposed of they would be available only to returned men who had a recommendation from a rehabilitation committee, to the Government departments and to a few high priorities, §uch as doctors, but not to civilians generally. But Mr Barclay, who had lost his seat at the last election, decided that he wanted a car. “I suppose he had some influence in Wellington,” said Mr Goosman, “because he was able to go to an Auckland car park and get a car.” Mr Goosman said he had asked the Commissioner of Supply, Mr F. R. Picot, who gave the instruction enabling Mr Barclay to obtain the car. _ Mr Picot replied that it was the Minister of Supply. The fact was that Mr Barclay, on no other authority than a telephone message from somebody in Wellington, was able to go to an Auckland park and was allowed to take a car away without having paid for it. It was not suggested that Mr Barclay did not pay for the car, but he had not paid for it when he took delivery. LETTER TO MR PICOT “Later Mr Barclay wrote to Mr Picot a letter which began ‘Dear Frank,’ in which he asked Mr Picot to send him a receipt dated from the day on which he took delivery,” continued Mr Goosman. “That letter included the words: ‘They are saying in Auckland that I got the car for nothing. Will you wise up Mr Sullivan and Mr Nordmeyer so they will be able to answer, Opposition questions if any are raised’.” There was a chorus of interjections at this stage and the Speaker, Mr Schramm, several times called members to order. , . Mr Goosman said the Minister of Finance, Mr Nash, had argued to the Public Accounts Committee that Mr Barclay had a right to a car because his own had been impressed. “I say he had no right to a car any more than hundreds of other civilians. He got it by political patronage,” declared Mr Goosman, who proceeded to describe another instance of a car allegedly wrongly obtained by a young airman. , . Mr T. H. McCombs (Lab., Lyttelton): He was a returned man. Mr Goosman said the airman m question was an undischarged serviceman and had no right to obtain a csr, but by using political patronage, which was available, he also got a car in Auckland on instructions telephoned from Wellington. Not only this, but the price, which was £2OO, was reduced to £175, and then he was given a serviceman’s discount of 15 per bringing the price down to £l4B. Jme airman then drove the car back to his station, where he met a superior officer, who said: “Where did you get that car. It is mine. It was impressed from me. If you can get a car I can.” “But this superior officer has no political pull and no friends at court and was turned down,” said Mr Goosman. “This reveals a terrible state of things. Indeed, if I may borrow a phrase from the member for Mataura, it shows arrant political jobbery. COMMITTEE’S DECISION Mr Nash pointed out that the Public Accounts Committee had. agreed to refer these two transactions back to the Auditor-General. They were, however, completely honest transactions, on a par with a case he would refer to in which Mr Goosman and the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Holland, were a party to buying an army truck. Their transaction was in perfect order, but no different from Mr Barclay’s. Mr Nash quoted from a copy of the letter written by Mr Barclay to Mr Picot. The letter said: “Will you please forward a receipt for £225 in payment for the car I bought in Auckland. Please make out the receipt for the date on which I gave you the cheque in Wellington.” That proved the incorrectness of Mr Goosman’s quotation from a letter, said Mr Nash, a letter which the Commissioner of Supply himself had never seen before. The matter was raised in the Public Accounts Committee. A Government interjector: The muckrake won’t work. Mr Nash quoted further from the letter, which set out that payment for the car was made in Wellington before delivery was taken in Auckland. “It is as clear as daylight,” said Mr Nash. “We want to get rid of this cruel misstatement which has been made that the car was taken away without being paid for.” PAYMENT IN WELLINGTON Mr Nash explained that Mr Barclay then went to Mr Picot with his complaint that he was being asked to pay too much for the car being released to him. Nevertheless, he paid for the car in Wellington before taking delivery of it in Auckland. The reference to “wising up” the Ministers was simply the request of an honest man that the true facts should be made known to those who would be called upon to refute misstatements made about him. Mr Nash said that when he inspected the records of army vehicles purchased he found that S. G. Holland Ltd. had purchased a truck for £7O, while another entry in the book showed the purchase of a van by S. G. Holland for £3O. Later, a valuer who had been before the committee over other matters had explained that this latter entry should have been in the name of S. E. Holland, a brother of the Leader of the Opposition. Mr Nash said these transactions were as clean and honest as they could possibly be and were on the same footing as Mr Barclay’s purchase. Mr Holland said the explanation of the transactions referred to by Mr Nash was simple. The fact was that S. G. Holland Ltd. had never bought a truck. Mr McCombs (Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee): I have got your signature here for it. Mr Holland: I don’t care what you’ve got. Mr Holland said it happened that his own and his brother’s signatures were very similar, while the two entries in the records would look alike because they were both made by the same man. His brother purchased the van solely for its tyres, but the truck mentioned was not bought by S. G. Holland Ltd. at all. Mr Nash: It is recorded. Mr Holland: The record is wrong. farming operations

.The Leader of the Opposition said Mr Goosman and himself were associated in farming operations in the name of S. G. Holland Ltd. They had wanted a chassis for use on the farm behind a tractor. He asked a valuer to keep a watch for a suitable old truck. The valuer obtained a truck from the army disposal area and brought it home to his (Mr Holland’s) place in Christchurch, but it was absolutely useless for the purpose they had in mind. “I never bought it and never paid anything for it. I had nothing to do

with it, although in collecting it from the car park the valuer has given the name of S. G. Holland, Ltd, said Mr Holland. Mr Nash: Did you send the four wheels and chassis back? Mr Holland: I don’t know what happened about it. I never returned it or had anything to do with it at any time. The Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, said there was nothing more unworthy than to try to make out that Mr Barclay was guilty of dishonourable conduct. When Mr Barclay was defeated at the polls he started looking round for a farm so that he could resume farming and it would have been a miserable attitude to adopt to have refused him a car after his own had been impressed for the army. The matters they were discussing were trivial and only microscopic minds would make a fuss about them. The committee had found that there had been no dishonesty involved at all. The motion to table the report of the committee was carried.