Extraordinary Case

EFFECT OF NG TIMBER LEASE TRIAL VERDICT UPON

Mr. E. J. Ward's Career

Conditions of Royal Commission Add Ridicule To An Extraordinary Case

By R. W. Robson

THE drama of the New Guinea Timber Leases, the question of whether Australian Territories • Minister “Eddie” Ward was connected with them, and the charges made against Ward by his former associate, “Jock” Garden, did not end with the verdict of “not guilty” by the Sydney jury in the conspiracy trial on December 22, It has now been switched over into an inquiry by an Australian Royal Commis sioner, which will commence in February, but which, owing to the limited terms of reference, is already being decried as an absurdity.

Meanwhile Mr. Ward (“at his own re quest”) has been relieved of his port folios, and another Australian Minister, a Mr. Chambers —who hitherto has held the portfolio of the Army—is acting as Minister in charge of New Guinea and Papua affairs.

History of The Case THE drama began away back in 1944, soon after Mr. Ward became Minister for Territories, Mr. Ward had been Minister for National Service, during the war, and his very old friend and staunch comrade in a thousand political fights, Mr. Jock Garden, was a high official in Mr. Ward’s Department. Another official was a Mr. Urquhart, who had been a Railways clerk, or something modest in that line. Bear the name in mind.

From one angle, the National Service Organisation did not have a good repu tation.

It was generally believed in Sydney during the critical war years that men who had been “called up” could be “ex cused” from service if a bribe were paid to certain officials in the National Service Department (or whatever it was called).

How common the practice was I can not say positively; but I know that the system was in operation, because I per sonally knew of a man who escaped service on payment of £ 100 —I made a note of the details at the time. I do not say that either Garden or Urquhart were connected with this racket; but the racket did exist in the Department with which they were connected, and of which Mr. Ward was the Ministerial head.

Anyway, when Mr. Ward moved over to the Territories Department, Mr.

Garden apparently moved with him.

Garden seems to have been still paid by the former Department: but his office was close to th£vt of the Territories Minister in the Commonwealth Bank, Sydney, and among other things he looked after electoral organisation matters for “Eddie” in East Sydney (“Eddie’s” seat), and he had the entree to the Territories Minister’s office. Garden apparently had no official standing in the Territories Department; but, unofficially, because of his close personal association with the Minister, he seems to have been accepted as a person in authority.

Syndicate’s Slow Progress SOMEWHERE about the end of 1944, Jock Garden, a mysterious indi vidual named Edward Farrell (aged 60, a mining engineer) and our old friend Ray Parer (aged 54, pioneer aviator), be came involved in a plan for securing the

right to remove, from the Bulolo Valley of New Guinea, some of the very valu able stands of timber that clothe those precipitous slopes. There was nothing wrong about the plan—it was quite openly referred to in the PIM in 1944. The PIM on that occasion, however, said that the reports had one or two Commonwealth Ministers interested in the Timber Leases; and. up to date, that has not been proved correct.

Mr. Farrell, in 1944-45, succeeded in getting a well-known Brisbane timber concern, Hancock and Gore, Ltd., in terested in the project. A syndicate, comprising Jock Garden, his son Har court (said subsequently to be a dummy for Mr. Ward, but this was never proved), Farrell and Parer, was formed to handle the plan. The Co. apparently was prepared to pay £lOO,OOO for the right to take the timber out of New Guinea. It actually paid, first, £12,500, and later, £37,500, making £50,000 in all.

Jock Garden’s efforts, on behalf of the syndicate, to obtain from the Minister and/or the Department a formal license or concession to take the timber, made slow progress. There were innumerable interviews and discussions between mem bers of the syndicate, and various of ficials. Jock seems to have convinced the members of the syndicate, and Han cock and Gore. Ltd., that the Minister was favourable. They all knew of Jock's close association with Mr. Ward, and Jock produced a formal Departmental letter approving of the Issue of the timber lease or license, signed ‘‘E. J.

Ward, per J. S. Garden”; and they ac cepted that at its face value. There was alleged to have been another and more formal letter in 1944.

One gets the impression that the real obstacle in the path of the plan was Mr. J. R. Halligan, secretary of the De partment. Whether the Minister did or did not approve of the plan—and that has been the moot point—it is clear that Halligan never at any time indicated that the Department, officially, had any thought or intention of giving to anyone the right to acquire New Guinea timber, except under conditions of open com petition.

Incredible as It may appear, these negotiations, or discussions, dragged on through 1945, 1946 and 1947, and there was no finality. Hancock and Gore, Ltd., which had paid £50,000, became more and more impatient and insistent. In the course of correspondence, a letter was written by Hancock and Gore, Ltd., to the Minister. It went through Garden’s hands. It was not in the form required, so Mr. Garden —instead of sending the letter back to Brisbane for alteration — had the last sheet re-typed, and himself signed the firm’s name.

The thing which seems to have told most against the Minister is that this went on for three years and he, accord ing to his claim, knew practically nothing about it.

Garden Goes to Gaol FINALLY, in December, 1947, came the showdown, Hancock and Gore tried to force the issue with the Minister; the Minister, shown the correspondence, denied knowledge of the plan to give the syndicate a timber lease, and of the receipt and distribution of £50,000; and, at his instigation, Garden was arrested and charged with certain offences. After a sensational trial in February, 1948, Garden was finally convicted of forgery in respect of the letter from Hancock and Gore which he had altered and signed, although he gave what he claimed to be a perfectly reasonable explanation of

his action. He was sent to gaol for three years.

The next stage was the prosecution of the members of the syndicate (Jock Garden, Harcourt Garden, Farrell and Ray Parer) on a charge of conspiracy.

The original prosecution of Jock Garden had occupied many weeks early in 1948.

The conspiracy trial occupied a longer period, in the latter part of 1948, con cluding on December 22. Much the same evidence was given as in the trial of Garden. Farrell, however, was now seriously ill, and could not stand his trial; and the three others went to trial without him. They were found “Not Guilty”.

Therefore, the charge against Farrell was withdrawn.

Charges Against Ward rE defence put up by the accused, Garden, in both trials was to the effect that Ward was cognisant of the plan to give the syndicate a timber lease, and that he received a substantial share of the £50,000 paid over by Han cock and Gore, Ltd, Garden said that on Ward’s instructions he personally handed some of Ward’s share (£5,000) to Urquhart, who was Ward’s close per sonal friend. Both Ward and Urquhart fiercely denied this.

This brought Mr. Urquhart under the microscope. It was found that Urquhart, formerly a clerk, had become a National Service official in Mr. Ward’s Department; that, while he was in that job, extra ordinarily large sums of money had passed through his private bank accounts —a fact which he explained by saying he had been a heavy bettor on Sydney race courses: and that, on Mr. Ward’s recom mendation, he had now become managing director of Pincombes, Ltd. (a typewriter importing firm) at £2,000 p.a.

During the Court proceedings, there was a great amount of sharply conflicting evidence —one side or the other was clearly guilty of barefaced perjury—and charges and counter-charges involving the Minister were exceedingly bitter.

Judge Holt’s summing up, at the end of the conspiracy trial, occupied many hours. The following is from the “Daily Telegraph” report, published on Decem ber 22: Approaching: the end of his summing-up, Judge Holt said that either Ward or Garden had com mitted perjury. The decision was with the jury “in this sad and dreadful matter which has been contested between the two.*’

He said to the jury: “You have the tests of documents and of their (Garden’s and Ward’s) demeanour in the witness-box, and you have to decide whom you accept out of the two. They might be telling lies about one thing and lies about another.

“Could there be anything more serious in community life than offering a Minister a bribe?

It strikes at the whole of the Government of the country and the running of the country.

“Garden was cross-examined on the handing over of £5,000 to Urquhart, which he said he did on the Minister’s direction. It is a matter for you to decide whether the £5,000 was handed over. If it was it may account for a great number of matters on which the case for the accused hinges. If it was not, it seriously re flects on the credit of J. S. Garden. It would show him to be a man who would resort to almost anything, even to endeavouring to tear down a vpry old friend in the esteem of the community.

“Of course, on the other hand, if you come to the conclusion that the Minister did accept it, then he must be guilty of a most reprehen sible and despicable act, quite apart from the serious crime of testifying against a friend of very many years.

“There can be no b/alf-measures—it is a definite perjury on the side of one or the other and whoever is perjuring himself, it is a very dreadful act.”

The Jury found all three “Not Guilty”.

Harcourt Garden and Ray Parer were

dlscharged from custody, and Jock Gar den was returned to gaol.

Ward Goes Quickly Into Action IMMEDIATELY the jury had given its verdict, Territories Minister Ward— who had been in court during most of the proceedings—leaped into a Ministerial car and went at once to Canberra, where he demanded of the Prime Minister the appointment of a Royal Commission, with the widest possible powers, to investigate the whole circumstances.

Mr. Chifley agreed that the matter should forthwith come under review by a Royal Commission. He also, at Mr.

Ward’s request, relieved Mr. Ward of his Ministerial portfolios.

But the newspapers regarded the pro cedure sourly. Ever since December, 1947, the case had been sub judice.

There was much that the newspapers, in the public interest, would have liked to have said concerning Mr. Garden and Mr. Ward: but, because they may not comment on anything sub judice, they could do no more than report develop ments, and court proceedings.

When the conspiracy trial ended the case became open for comment. But, by racing off to Canberra, and getting agreement to a Royal Commission within a few hours, Mr. Ward rendered it sub judice again. The journalists were not pleased.

Mr. Ward’s Conduct THERE are certain aspects of this thing, however, which are not sub judice, and may thus be referred to; • The action of Minister Ward, in hanging on to his portfolio during 1948 has been generally condemned. The un written rules of Parliament demand that, upon the slightest breath of suspicion of his integrity, a member of Parliament shall give up all Ministerial responsibility, until the matter is cleared up. The nature of Garden’s defence—his claim that “Ward was in it”—was seen early in 1948; yet Ward remained in charge of important departments until the end of 1948. • There was a serious gap in the con spiracy trial, owing to the absence of Farrell. It was Farrell who received—

and banked—the two payments, totalling £50,000, from Hancock and Gore; and Farrell, presumably, distributed the money. A knowledge of how the £50,000 was disposed of was vital to the clearing-up of this case—but that never was brought out. It is incredible that there were no Bank records available, covering this point. • So far as is known, Mr. Ward is still a member of the Australian Govern ment, and is still drawing Ministerial emoluments. Is he still attending Cabinet Meetings? If the judge’s com ments, which we have quoted, mean any thing at all, they mean that Mr. Ward is now under a cloud—at least until such time as he can be cleared by this Royal Commission.

The Royal Commission: Could Be Useless rE Royal Commission will seriously commence its inquiry (after a pre liminary sitting on January 21) on February 1, Instead of three, only one Royal Com missioner (Mr. Justice Ligertwood, of the South Australian Supreme Court) was appointed by the Australian Prime Minister; and .there was such extra ordinary delay in issuing the terms of reference (that is, the instructions to the Commissioner, determining the scope of the inquiry) that the newspapers— always suspicious of this office-loving Socialist Government—made sharp com ment upon it. The terms of reference were published on January 12: What were the real transactions involved be tween Raymond Parer, Harcourt Garden, Edward Farrell, and John Smith Garden, or any of them, and Hancock & Gore, Ltd., or any of its directors, employees, or legal repre sentatives in relation to timber rights in the Territory now known as Papua-New Guinea?

Whether the Honourable Edward John Ward, Minister for State for External Territories, was party to any of the transactions above men tioned.

Whether the Minister signed, or authorised John Smith Garden to sign, any notification that the grant to Raymond Parer of any timber licence jn the Bulolo Valley had been or would be approved by the Minister.

Whether the Minister— (l) Was promised any financial benefit in re

(Continued on Page 90)

lation to any of the transactions above mentioned. (2) Received either directly or indirectly any financial benefit in relation to any of the transactions above mentioned.

Whether the Minister— (l) Is or was financially interected either directly or indirectly in Sydney Pincombe Pty., Ltd. (2) Has received either directly or indirectly any financial benefit from that company.

This, of course, so narrows the scope of the inquiry as to make the whole proceeding of little use to the public.

The Commissioner is asked merely to check up on evidence given in the trials of Garden and the other men; and it is

difficult to see how he is going to get any more information than was available to the skilled officials who prepared the case against Garden and his associates.

Australian newspapers, almost unani mously, have condemned or ridiculed the terms of reference.

What the public want to know goes further and deeper. They want to know the history of the relationship between Ward and Garden, and between Ward and Urquhart, not only in connection with New Guinea matters, but also in connection with the National Service De partment, which preceded the New Guinea incident. They want to know a good deal more about Mr. Farrell’s bank ing transactions than has been yet dis closed. They want to know why Mr.

Garden occupied that extraordinary po sition within—or on the edge of—Mr Ward’s Department of External Terri tories. And they would like to know a great deal more about the assets of Messrs. Ward, Garden, Urquhart and others, in 1948-49, as compared with their assets in, say, 1941.

But the terms of reference issued by Mr. Chifley do not appear to give the Commissioner authority to inquire into any of these things. Verbum sapienti sat est!

Mr. Ward’s Political Stock Is Down MEANWHILE, it is evident that, as a result of the New Guinea Timber Leases and the conviction of Jock Garden, the political stock of Mr. Ward has fallen sharply.

A couple of years ago, it was generally expected that Ward would become the leader of at least the Leftist Section of Australian Labour. His achievement, in running Dr. Evatt so close for the Deputy Prime Ministership, was a tribute to his strength and general ability. But now he seems to be in the discard: Labour Party observers have expressed doubt as to whether he can secure the official selection for East Sydney seat. Garden is very well known in East 'Sydney; and most East Sydney people seem to re member him as “good old Jock” rather than as a man convicted of the crime of forgery. That fact is reacting against Mr. Ward.

Mr. Charles McPhee, and his small son Paul, of Western Samoa, arrived in Syd ney on holiday on January 15. Mr.

McPhee’s paintings of Western Samoa are well known in the Pacific and in New Zealand and they also have become well known to Americans who served in West ern Samoa during the war. Unlike most artists who have attempted to paint in the South Seas, he gets an almost tan gible Pacific atmosphere into his work.

The Rev. Gordon Young and the Rev. and Mrs. J. Goodwin of the Methodist Overseas Mission left Sydney in early December by the Malaita. Mr. Young will go to New Britain; Mr. and Mrs. Good win to Papua.