TRUST ABUSED

Hokitika Guardian, 3 October 1930, Page 7

TRUST ABUSED

CABINET DECLINES TO GRANT REINSTATEMENT.

WELLINGTON, September 30. In the House of Representatives this evening when the Post Office vote was under consideration, Mr A. Harris (R., Waitemata) complained that the Hon. J. B. Donald had announced no decision on the subject of the petitions on which the Petitions Committee of the House had recently submitted a unanimous recommendation. He referred to the Committee’s recommendation that the petitions of the Auckland telegraph employees for relief in connexion with their dismissal following the Takapuna Race Meeting should receive most favourable consideration. '

Mr Donald said the petitions had been discussed by Cabinet and it ha 1 been decided that no action should be taken. The men had been dismissed for divulging information. Their cases had been investigated by a Magistrate, who had decided they were guilty of the charges laid against them. The men had appealed to a Court consisting of a Magistrate nominated by the Governor-General and two other representatives, one nominated by the Government and the other by the employees. This Court had unanimously decided that the men were guilty. Mr Donald insisted it was essential that the secrecy of the Post Office should be maintained. The men had been fully aware that if they abused the trust reposed in them they would be dismissed.

Mr H. E. Holland, Leader of the Labour Party, said he did not think any section of the House would be in dined to accept the position. It was true the men had been tried by two Courts, but they had then come to the last Court of Appeal in the land, liie Petitions Committee had heal'd all the evidence and had declared the punishment unduly harsh. It appeared that the Government was prepared to protect the bookmakers who were using the facilities of the Department illegally. 1 SECRECY VIOLATED.

The Hon. E. A. Ransom said Cabinet had carefully considered the cases. It was evident that the essential secrecy of the Department had been disregarded, and this was a serious matter, notwithstanding the fact that it related to racing information. He reminded the House that even the representative of the men themselves on the Appeal Court had agreed With the finding that they were guilty. The evidence before Cabinet had disclosed that on one day information lmd gone out of the office on fifty occasions, and on another day information which should have been secret had been divulged on forty occasions. He could not say whether it was all racing information. Labour members: Wouldn’t a reprimand have been a sufficient penalty ? Mr Ransom: There was no other course open than to support the secretary in maintaining the efficiency and secrecy of the Department.

Mr R. Semple (Lab., Wellington East) said lie wished to lodge a protest against the treatment Select Committees had to put up with. Surely the House could instruct the Government or the responsible Minister to be reasonable with its servants. It had not been suggested that some punishment was not‘justified but it was contended that the punishment meted out to the men was altogether out of proportion. The Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates (Leader of the Opposition) said a point had not been made clear. The head of the Department was controlled entirely by legislation. This being so, if an appeal were disallowed the Department had no option but to put the dismissals into effect. He expressed some alarm at the use apparently being bade of the Telegraph Office for betting telegrams.

Mr Donald said the men at Auckland had been warned against using the office telephone for betting purposes. A tip did not constitute a be.-.ng telegram. For instance, a telegram stating a horse had a chance of winning could not be refused. BETTING TELEGRAMd. Mr F. Langstone (Lab., Waimarino) alleged that every postmaster in New Zealand was aware of the number of betting telegrams that were transmitted on race days. He asserted that the Department’s “spy system” in connexion with the cases under consideration had been inaugurated at the behest of the bookmakers. Mr Donald denied that the complaints had come from bookmakers. They had come from owner's and trainers.