MOTOR VEHICLE INQUIRY

Chronicle (Levin), 24 August 1946, Page 5

MOTOR VEHICLE INQUIRY

-Press Association

EVIDENCE FROM MR. NASH NOT REQUIRED

By Telegraph-

WELLINGTON, August 23. The Minister of Finance, Hon. W. *Nash, will not be required to give evidence befpre the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the acquisition and disposal ,of American motor vehiclcs. On Wednesdajq Mr. John George Young, deputy-chairiuan of the War Assets Realisation Board, read to tlie Commission a letter he had written to Mr. Nash, chairman of the Boarci, asking whether he approved of the release of Archibald 's Garages Ltd. from their contraet to purchase Dodge trucics and jeeps. Mr. W. J. Leieester, counsei for the four Members of Parliament appeaidng in their private capacity, said he assumed the repJy to the letter would be read. Hovvever, Mr. Nasti could appear in person if Air. T. ir-. Cleary, counsei for the Board, vvished to present evidence from him. The Auxi ister was not privileged above otiier people so that he need not attend, ano so that evidence from him had to ue placed before tlio Commission in .a roundabout vvay. At today 's meeting of the Conmiis sion Gouimissioner Bartholoiuew asked Af r. Glearv if he vvished to present evi dence from Air. Nash. Counsei deplied "No." The Commission then read the fol lowing minute: "1 have to make refer ence to the application to tender in direct evidence in respect of the Rt. Hon. Alinister of Finance. Application was made to the Commission to admil evidence of the report of the Board V dec isi o.n on the question of the release of Archibalds, made by a Alember ot the Board to the Alinister, and of tlie opinion expressed by the Alinistei thereon. I use tlie word 'ojiinion' and not 'decision' advisedly, as the release of Archibalds has already been legally linalised by the decision of the Board. For obvious reasons the admission of such secondary evidence was refused lf I viewed the evidence of the Alinister on this point as of suflieient ini portilnce then it would be my dutv to require his attention before the Com mission, making, of course, sue.li ar rangements as would least interfere vvith his important public duties, but my considered opinion is that such evidence is not of sutlicient importauci to vvarrant this course as ihe propriety or regularity of the Board 's conduet is not to be determined by an ex-post fac.to opinion whieh may have been ex pressed by the Alinister."