SCRIMGEOUR CASE

Wairarapa Times-Age, 5 March 1943, Page 3

SCRIMGEOUR CASE

REFERENCES IN PARLIAMENT, MR J. A. LEE ALLEGES DISCRIMINATION. DENIAL BY GOVERNMENT MEMBER. (By Telegraph—Press Association.) WELLINGTON, This Day. “What transpired at the Appeal Board has created a grave doubt in the public mind that certain people are prepared to use the balloting system of recruiting to get vengeance,” declared Mr J. A. Lee (Democratic Labour, Grey Lyn), when referring in the Address-in-Reply debate in the House of Representatives last evening to the appeal concerning Mr C. G. Scrimgeour, controller of the National Commercial Broadcasting Service. He said the matter could not be allowed to rest there, and some official statement should be issued to remove those doubts from the people’s mind. “It is not right that any Minister should say let it be ‘open slather’ here and a close season there,” Mr Lee said. Personally, he was opposed to the calling for military service of any man, irrespective of oosition, with three children. Not so long ago he had read that the calling of men of that age-group was suspended, and yet it appeared that Mr Scrimgeour had been called to the Army out of his turn. That indicated discrimination. Replying to an interjection by the Minister of Justice, Mr Mason, Mr Lee said that other civil servants had been appealed for, but it became operg slather, as the Minister of Broadcasting, Mr Wilson, said before the Appeal Board, when it was a case of a man whom he said had been disloyal to him. It was not the first time that tactics of that kind had been adopted. Soon after the Prime Minister had gone to Britain the same office which had had its locks changed recently had been entered by a department officer on the instructions of a Minister, and the correspondence seized. There had also been instances of phone-tapping and holding up of correspondence. According to the reports it was plain that somebody had been lying on oath before the appeal board. If it was not Mr Wilson then it must be Mr Scrimgeour, as both could not be right. That matter should be investigated as to who told lies, and the public told who had done so. “The people feel that something wrong has been done to Mr Scrimgeour, and it will not settle the matter merely to reinstate him in his job,” said Mr Lee. “Why was the lock changed on the office door? We are entitled to know about that, and the sooner the better. The matter cannot be allowed to stand where it is ,and there should be a clear-cut statement. The public mind on this matter is that a tribunal was not used for recruiting, but for the purpose of railroading a man the Minister of Broadcasting did not want.” Mr Chanman (Government, Wellington North) said that Mr Lee was astray in suggesting there had been discrimination against Mr Scrimgeour. It was the policy of the Government not to appeal for any civil servant directly under Ministerial control, and had it lodged an appeal for Mr Scrimgeour the Government would have been treating him more favourably than other public servants. The Government had shown no favour or disfavour toward Mr Scrimgeour in regard to an appeal. Had he been appealed for by the Government or his Minister there would have been special favouritism in his case. (Other news relating to the Scrimgeour case appears on page 6.)