Lives Of Soldiers Were Not Endangered

Wanganui Chronicle, 4 October 1946, Page 6

Lives Of Soldiers Were Not Endangered

Truck Inquiry Report OPPOSITION CRITICISM

(P.A.) Parliament Bldgs., Oct. 3. A unanimous finding that while some unsuitable vehicles were sent to the Third Division in the Pacific in January and February. 1943, the lives of the men in the Division were not endangered, was reported to the House of Representatives to-day by the Defence Committee. It recently heard a petition of George Laing praying for a public inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the supply of vehicles to the Division.

The Committee also reported, although not unanimously, that it had no recommendation to make upon the prayer of the petitioner.

Mr. R. M. Macfarlane, chairman ot the Committee, in presenting the report, said the committee found that petitioner had not substantiated his charges concerning allegedly obsolete vehicles supplied to the Third Divteton.

In considering the Committee's recommendation it was necessary to recall the major piayer of the lengthy petition, which asked for a public inquiry into the matter, and also asked that those responsible for furnishing the division with “worn out and obsolete vehicles” should be dealt with according to the degree of then incompetence or guilt established by a competent tribunal. While the committee unanimously agreed that the men’s lives were not jeopardised, Opposition members of the committee had not concurred that the committee should make no recominendatoii as to a public inquiry. During the hearing of a large volume of evidence, matters not strictly relevant to the supply of Third Division vehicles were introduced by petitioner, and, said Mr. Macfarlane, he understood that Opposition members of the committee believed that Laing’s petition should be granted to the extent that a public inquiry should be held into charges made by Laing against Army officers. Opposition members believed that such a public inquiry, with evidence taken upon oath, woulud enable matters raised by Laing to be fully dealt with.

Mi. Macfarlane reviewed the evidence given to the committee, which, he said, showed that although some vehicles which were not the fourwheel type, were sent to New Caledonia, they were replaced before the division entered a combat zone, and at the time they were sent the Army knew they would be used for training only. The committee found that Laing made no mechanical examination of the vehicles he claimed were unserviceable, nor did he look at more than a small proportion of them. Brigadier Avery, then Quarter-master-General, had done his utmost hi a difficult situation.

NO EVIDENCE. Mr. Macfarlane said that Laing had produced no evidence to dispute that when the division moved forward to a combat zone it had more than suf- j flcient modern transport. With regard to the question of a public inquiry into other matters than those relevant to the petition, it was open to petitioner to make his statements openly in such a way that any person against whom he made accusations could bring legal action.

Mt. W. S. Goosman (Opp., Waikato): What rot! Mr. J. T. Watts (Opp., Riccarton): He would have to make a libellous statement. Mr Goosman: Why doesn't the Government give him the sack, anyway? Mr. Macfarlane said that the evidence produced by Laing to the committee was not only first hand, but included second, third and fourthband evidence as to the condition of the vehicles. Mr. T. L. Macdonald (Opp., Mataura) said one point about the petition, which had a somewhat lengthy history, was that it was a glaring example of Goxernment procrastination which shouid have been cleared up three and a-half years ago. The Prime Minister, Mr. Fraser: That was done. Mr. Macdonald: It could not have been done. Otherwise there would have been no petition. Mr. Macdonald went on to refer to one memorandum submitted by petitioner to the Perry Inquiry, dated April 1, 1943, in which grave charges were alleged against high Army officers. an allegation of a secret commission being paid and the improper influence of a motor company. There had been much littletattle about the case and the Opposition view was that those whose names were connected with the talk should be given a chance to be heaid in a public inquiy before a magistrate. “DELIBERATE FALSEHOOD.” Mr. Macdonald, quoting from evidence given by Laing in the hearing of the recent petition, when petitionersaid the Prime Minister had told him that something would have to be done to petitioner if the charges were not substantiated, drew from Mr. Fraser replies of, “That is not true,” and That is a deliberate falsehood.” Mr. Macdonald said the findings of the Perry Inquiry were not made known to petitioner until the recent hearing before the Defence Committee.

Mr. W. J. Broadfoot <Opp., Waitomo): A pretty good smother up. Mr. Macdonald said that no real inquiry had yet been held, despite the fact that the Prime Minister had received such a request from the Army authorities. When Laing lodged his first peti- | tion in 1943 the Prime Minister was reported to have said to petitioner, “Yom can’t remain an employee of the Government and have a petition like that before the House.” Why was petitioner still employed by the Government. even though, on his own evidence, he Mas employed only two days a month?