CONFIDENTIAL PAPERS.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 1873, 6 October 1913, Page 6

CONFIDENTIAL PAPERS.

, A very interesting point is raised by tho attempt of counsel for Mr. P. Heyes, supported by the A to L Petitions Committco of tho House of Representatives,*, to secure access to certain confidential papers which are said to bear on a potition from Mr. Heyes now under consideration by the committee. It will probably bo recalled that 'Mr. Heyes was called on to resign his position a-s Commissioner of Taxes as tho result of the findings of a Commission of Inquiry consisting of. three highly pla-oed officers of the Public Service who investigated certain transactions connected with the Departments controlled by Mr. Heyes. The inquiry was held in secret, and the Ward Government, which was then in office, treated tho report as confidential. The allegations mado against Mr. Heyes related to the Taxing Department, and to the Valuing and Advancing Offices. In the case of the Taxing Department charges nothing of the findings of the commission was disclosed beyond a general statement by Sir Joseph Ward that the commissioners had not found Mr. Heyes guilty of corruption or of bribery or of dishonesty. In the case of the other charges extracts from the report were given which need not be repeated here, but which showed that Mr. Heyes and another official had acted improperly in tho matter of securing advances on property owned by Mr. Heyes. It was as the. result of these latter findings, Parliament was told, that Mr. Heyes and the other official referred to • were called on to resign, and did so. Prior to tho inquiry by the _ commission mentioned a, private inquiry was held by two Supreme Court Judges into some of the charges, and the report of tho Judges was treated as secret, and Sir Joseph Ward persistently refused to publish it, on tho ground that it would be improper to disclose tho affairs of those' having dealings with tho Taxing Department. Now Mr. Heyes is petitioning Parliament for compensation in connection with his enforced retirement from the Public Service, and wishes i for tho purpose of his case to have the _ documents connected with tho inquiry laid before the Parliamentary Committee which is considering his ejaims. Tho Department which holds tho documents has refused to produoo them on the ground .that they are confidential, and tho committee has reported the matter to Parliament. It remains for Parliament to say whether any Public Department can refuse to produce State documents when callcd on to do so. In the case of the particular documents under review we contended at the time—that is in 1910—that Sir Joseph Ward's refusal to lay tho report before Parliament was not justified; that where such important issues were" at stake as the administration and working of those great financial Departments of .the State dealing with taxation and money lending, Parliament was entitled to know exactly what the wrongdoing alleged amounted to, and who was concerned with it. Mr.' T. E. Taylor who was then regarded as a supporter of the Ward Government, though claiming independence, held a similar view. Discussing in Parliament the principle underlying Sir Joseph Ward's attitude, he said:

"I want to know why tho Executive of tho day should have the right to intercept documents that uudoubtedly belong to the people's representatives. Election to Parliament i 3 futile if when national interests are concerned and Judges are employed to make inquiry into allegations of wrongdoing the repurt i? ■handed to tho Executive of the day; and although as a matter of theory tho very conduct of tho Executive itself may bo involved in thesa matters, in the absence of power to tho contrary in our Standing Orders tho Executive is able to say: 'We cannot give tho representatives of tho people access to tho Judges' report. 1 Something is wrong there, and I do not think this assembly is so constituted as to bo inpablo of .receiving every kind of document, csoeciully documents dealing with very delicate matters, as that report undoubtedly will; but I do submit that somo alteration ought .to bo made in connection with the present condition of tilings, so that documents of that character could be forced by Parliament to ro bofuro, sax, a Fublio AocouuU Commit..

tee-not a Publ'io Accounts Committee based upou party divisions, but a Public Accounts Committee set up to consider matters of a judicial character. Jt is perfectly clear in my miiul that, us representing the people, wo havo no right to bo in tho position that wo are not considered capable of having access to documents that impeach, probably, the trustworthiness of important State officials, and that may inferential]}' impeach tho integrity of the Executive, which lattor is able to seize upon the rpport and prevent Parliament from getting acccss to it."

The Ward Government, however, refused to mak© known the contents of the rpport even with the substitution of letters or figures for the names of private individuals or firms mentioned in it. Now Parliament is to be called on to decide whether a Parliamentary committee—which appears to consider tho documents ncccssary to enable it to arrive, at an equitable judgment on the claims of a petitioner—has no rights in the matter. No doubt the whole episodo is an unpleasant one for Sin Joseph Wahd nnd his followers to recall; moro especially in view of tho attacks they have been making on the Massey Government in connection with tho publication of reports. But there is an important principlo involved, and it is just as well that the point should bo cleared up.