AUCKLAND POSTAL DISMISSALS

Hokitika Guardian, 6 September 1930, Page 3

AUCKLAND POSTAL DISMISSALS

A TAPPED LINE. 4 ~ STRONG CRITICISM IN PARLIAMENT. REINSTATEMENT BILL THREATENED.' WELLINGTON, Sep. 3. Tapping a telephone line in the Auckland telegraph office some months ago led to revelations which, following an official investigation, resulted in the dismissal of nine employees of the department on various charges associated with betting communications. Five of theiemployees petitioned Parliament praying for .relief, and the Public PetitionslCommittee made its. report to the House of Representatives to-day. In the discussion members were particularly critical of the methods adopted officially to secure evidence, and they also condemned the harshness of the punishment. A specially strong recommendation was made in the case ol Doe. Cushion Rains, one of the dismissed, njen,-• the Public Petitions Commit-tee'-reporting: “ In the opinion of the committee the punishment is unduly -severe?, and the petition should be referred to the Government for mos:. favourable consideration.” In the cases of Ronald Blair, R. AA. S. Smith. James Henry lEdwards and Ernest Wil liam Anstis, the committee repeated its opinion that the punishment of dismissal had been too severe, and recommended the petitions to the Government for favourable consideration. .... The case of Rains was first discussed and the House was reminded by Mr Harris (Waitemata) that some months ago a good deal of feeling was engendered in Auckland over the dismissal of. nine postal officials, who were charged with using official information in connection with betting Mr Han isideelared' that so far as Rains Was concerned are. was convinced, after 1 most careful investigation, that the gravest miscarriage of. justice had occurred an,his dismissal, and that it wa •the duty' ol the’ Government. to put that right at . once. In the. .Auckland .telegraph office there was a -telephone’ staff use. Tins |iy£ts tapped by’ officers of the department, following' inquiries which were based on information obtained in this way. Nine officials were dismissed. In Rain’s cast he received a. private telegram .addressed to himself though,, as a matter p ! fact, it was intended for a relative win was in hospital at th etime. It contained ' some racing inforrnation for r member of his family, and Rains wa' the only, person to whom it could V delivered under the circumstances. He therefore, went to- the staff telephone end detailed the information to a member of his family. That information was tapped, and he, among others, wa charged with a serious offence, no' the offence of disclosing official information, .but merely a charge of usim an official wire for the transmission of racing information. No matter whal opinion members might hold about racing, they could not contend that it wa a crime to transmit information oh ■•tained in -a. private wire. He understood that in some other cases h was alleged official information was disclosed, this being knowledge which came into an officer’s possession throng', handling public telegrams, but he could not see that petitioner committed an? fault, and there was certainly nothing to justify the extreme penalty of summary dismissal after seventeen years' service without blemish. Rain’s record -showed that he was efficient and zealous, and he had been commended for distinguished service , during the war when he was an assistant wireless officer on the Tailiiti. Rains had been out, of work seven months, for his training as telegraph operator made it difficult for him to secure suiitable employment. The case should not be allowed to stand over for consideration by Cabinet at the end of the session, hut should be dealt with at once. “It is worse than punishment,” declared Mr Harris.. “If is- crucifixion, and I cannot conceive how if could he meted out for merely, carrying out the regulations of the Department.”

“ THE SPY SYSTEM.” Mr Savage (Auckland. "West) declared that, of the Dominion’s records were hunted from end to end, it would ho impossible to find a parallel for the punishment meted out in Rain’s case. “It is common knowledge that the postal service is used for illegal traffic, and that the Department cannot possibly defend the nature of the telegrams that are alleged to have been used illegally,” he said. “I have never believed in the spy system, and when it comes to the tapping of telephones ito try to get at the shortcomings of (the service, we are hardly playing the ‘game.” ! Mr Lysnar (Gisborne) remarked that (from an outsider’s standpoint lie. could see no reason whatever for the dismissal, of this young man. He would be as ready as any member to see that there was no leakage from the Department, but, when he found that an official had been dismissed for using a telephone available for the use of the staff to communicate with his own sister, it seemed to him that the action of the Department was an extraordinary abuse of the regulations. If there was a regulation which gave them such powers, then the regulation was unreasonable. The Postmaster - General would be acting wisely and properly if lie accepted the recommendations of the committee and reinstated, the petitoner. 1.

Mr Semple (AAYllington East) declared that the cross-examination of the detective who listened in to Raine’s conversation completely destroyed the value of his statement. The dismissal was a callous blunder, and, if the Post-master-General had a scrap of justice about him, lie would reinstate the petitioner, THIRD DEGREE ALLEGATIONS. Mr Samuel (Thames), stated that the Petitions iCqminittee was ■ unanimous that there /was not a. tittle of evidence that Rains committed any offence. He had really been pilloried because lie refused to make any statement. There' was trouble in the Department. , and an attempt was made to extract information from him by means of the third degree. His refusal •to Speak was,his only possible offence. Mr Jordan (Mannkau) submitted that, if the recommendation of the committee were not upheld, it war doubtful whether the public would retain its confidence in a Parliamentary institution. He hoped, however that the Government and the PostmasterGeneral would see that justice was done. NO CONTROL. Mr Vincent'Ward (Invercargill) said that his late, father had gone into the law. and- ascertained that the Post-master-General had no control in the cases under review, and that had been confirmed by the Solicitor-General. “ I am astounded to hear that statement,” said Mr Wright (Wellington Suburbs), who added that it was an extraordinary state of affairs that the head of the Department should have Power over the Minister.

Mr Fraser (Wellington Central)): A. little Mussolini. (Hear, hear.) Mr Wright: If that is the case, tie sooner wo pass legislation to rented it the better. (Loud Labour “Hear hears.”) T am not going to stand fo it under any circumstances, (Heal hear.) If I were Postmaster-Genera.' T would sack the Secretary and g? over it that way.

Contending that the case was one o' most amazing in recent years, M H. E. Holland, leader of the Labour' Party, said that, as far as he cool ' see, there was not a shred of justifi cation for the dismissal of the petitioner. IT© was astonished to find tlm' the Postmaster-General had not riserto inform the House that the man would l>e reinstated. It was unthiiik able that the law had been so frame'' as to make the , Postmaster-Genera helpless in the matter. In any case surely Parliament, the highest Cour' in the land, was superior. The Df partment permitted a telegram to U accepted, and if there were any erim inal guilt in the matter it was with the Department itself. (Hear, hear.

POSTMASTE!R-GFNERAL’S COMMENT. The Hon. J. R. Donald, Postmaster. General, said that lie knew the peti tioner, and had a high opinion o ! him. Mr Semple (Wellington ; E!ast) ; Tha' is no good to him. The Minister: I don’t know that P is no good. The Minister said he thought tha' Mr Semple had made a very serious statement when lie said that if th Postmaster-General had any justice i l ' his souil lie would do “so and so.” nT consider no one in this House should receive such a taunt,” declared th' Minister. “I would not like to thin' any mem tier of this House is devoid of justice. T believe T have as nine justice as anyone. Mr Semple: This is a test for you. Mr Speaker: Order! Order! The Minister said that Rains had been dismissed because h© had divulp ed information, not which came t© himself, hut to other people, and foasking a question. .It would have been impossible for Rains to hav" been convicted if fhere had been n r > charge. The House could rest satisfie' 1 that , the case would receive the consideration it demanded. He would b‘ only too pleased to do what he could for Rains within reason. It had been suggested that the Post Offiee allowed Die transmission of betting telegrams but that was not the case. At th'* same time, it was Hie not the easies' thing in the world to detect bettin" telegrams. Sometimes they were.couched in terms of sacks of wheat and oats. Telegrams of that nature could not he stopped. Mr Samuel: Are they all sent that way ? “A good many of them,” replied the Minister, who went on to sav that telegrams were stopped in the past, and it had been found later that t.hev were quite legitimate commercial messages. "Where the Department was suspicious the sender was asked to sign a statement that the telegram was not concerned with betting. The Minister a statement made that the telephone used was not an official one. The men in the office had been warned about what ,they were doing in connection with divulging information, and when they ;were convicted on that offence they had only themselves to blame. .HUNDREDS OF BETTING WTRE C Mr Kyle (Riecarton) said the evidence before the inquiry had shown that on the day in question 750 telegrams, proved to be betting telegrams had passed through the Auckland office. As these were illegal, the member wanted to know what had happened to them. He topic it that the office had not delivered them. “I wonder what happened to them,” Mr Kyle added, “or were they communicated to ‘Hypo,’ generally believed to be the secretary of the Auckland Bookmakers’ Association, if such an

organisation exists.” Mr Kyle sai ,! lie believed that if there were no authority for the reinstatement of the petitioner the House would agree to the introduction of an urgent measure to bring it about, NOT SATISFIED. Mr P. Eraser (Wellington Central said the Minister’s speech would no satisfy the House. It was the a linos unanimous opinion of the House tha a gross injustice had been perpetrated. Furthermore, not a single won had been uttered in defence of th< Postpone! Telegraph Department. Th* feel jug spin the House w„ag so strong Mr 'Fraser declared; .that if'the Gov eminent refused to act a Bill woul lie introduced to reinstate the- peti tioner. “And that Bill,” predictei the sneaker “wiil pass this House.” COMMITTEE UNANIMOUS. Replying to the debate, the chair man of the committee, Mr I. Lye said that the recommendation repre sented the unanimous decision of th< committee, every member of wine' had approached the hearing of th< petition with an impartial mind Rains had been convicted on inter enee, not on straightont evidence and lie felt the petitioner was suffering from a grave injustice. Rain had acted in an entirely honest man ner, and it was indeed a shockin' state of affairs that his livelihood should have been taken away iron him on mere inference. -He bad -in' previously an unblemished record, am’ even if it were held that he liad broken the regulations a warning won - have been sufficient penalty. Ther was every reason for treating tin man leniently. The report was tabled and referred to the Government for most favour able consideration. The reports on the four other peti tions were recommended for favour a hie consideration.