spinofflive
syd ross feature

SocietySeptember 16, 2017

Nazi hoax: the story of Syd Ross

syd ross feature

Black Sheep is a new Radio NZ series about the shady, controversial and sometimes downright villainous characters of New Zealand history, presented by William Ray. This week, he looks at the bizarre story of the Nazi assassination plot that wasn’t. 

In 1942 the head of New Zealand’s first spy agency, the Security Intelligence Bureau (SIB), sent a shocking letter to the prime minister.

Major Kenneth Folkes told Peter Fraser that Nazi agents had infiltrated New Zealand. He said the Germans had established a network of saboteurs and were planning on blowing up critical infrastructure and assassinating top level politicians.

Folkes urged the prime minister to take drastic action, saying the plan could be launched within a matter of weeks if nothing was done.

But… the Nazi conspiracy was a hoax, and some historians think Major Folkes deliberately expanded that hoax in an effort to get more power for the SIB.

Listen to Nazi hoax: the story of Syd Ross here

Headline of the NZ Truth when the hoax was revealed. Credit: NZ Truth

The hoax was dreamed up by two criminals Alfred Remmers and Sydney Ross, who were serving time together in Waikeria prison.

“Remmers was a policeman,” says Sherwood Young, a retired police historian. “He was dismissed because he committed a crime – burgling houses while he was on the beat.”

Young says Remmers was the mastermind of the hoax but needed a partner in crime to pull it off. “[Remmers] was a man who is sadly dying. Within a very short time he’s dead of leukemia and he’s in need of some conman to do the legwork.”

That conman was Sydney Ross, a fraudster and safebreaker. “He saw himself as a clever guy who could get away with things,” says Beverly Price, who helped her late husband Hugh Price write a book on the Syd Ross hoax, The Plot to Subvert Wartime New Zealand.

After being released from prison in March 1942, Ross rang the minister for public works and told him he’d been approached by Nazi conspirators who wanted to use his experience in safebreaking to blow up critical infrastructure to weaken New Zealand ahead of a German invasion.

“Ross started off with utter honesty,” says Beverly Price. “His way of handling his hoax all along was a mixture of what was true and verifiable; and the fantasy – that there were conspirators trying to get in touch with him.”

The government might have dismissed his story if not for a remarkable coincidence. The prime minister had just been told that a plot very similar to the fake conspiracy Ross was describing had just been uncovered in Australia.

Just days after Ross came forward, the headline of the Evening Post looked like this:

 

Evening post article on Australia First conspiracy. Credit: Papers Past

It turned out a proto-fascist group called “Australia First” (no relation to the current Australia First political party) were planning on blowing up infrastructure and distributing propaganda to smooth the way for a Japanese invasion.

That real plot was almost identical to the fake story Sydney Ross was spouting. So, understandably, the New Zealand government took Ross seriously and passed him on to the head of the newly formed Security Intelligence Bureau, a British MI5 agent called Major Kenneth Folkes.

Fortunately for Ross, Folkes had a vested interest in believing that this fake Nazi story was true. “He wanted more power,” says Beverly,“and of course if his department was going to do all this rounding up it would need to be far bigger”.

Within weeks of the pair meeting, Folkes sent a letter claiming he’d verified the Nazi conspiracy was real.

Sir,

With regard to the meeting I had with you on Sunday afternoon, investigations prove that the story we heard has substance. The matter is developing slowly and is leading to a clique already under notice.

Further developments will be reported to you immediately.

– Major Kenneth Folkes to Peter Fraser, dated 4 April 1942

But Ross’s story was fake, so how could Folkes have corroborated it?

Sherwood Young thinks Folkes was making it up. “He is certainly making a high pitch at a very early stage based, essentially, on his own hope.”

Folkes and the SIB encouraged Ross to expand his hoax, setting him up in Rotorua under the alias of Captain Calder of the Merchant Navy. During this time Ross gave the SIB a list of alleged conspirators, including Alfred Remmers, who Ross claimed was the mastermind of the Nazi plot.

The SIB wrote up this evidence in binders and Folkes wrote increasingly urgent letters to the prime minister with details of the supposed conspiracy.

 

Letter from Major Folkes to prime minister Peter Fraser outlining the Nazi “conspiracy”. Credit: Hugh Price (reproduced with permission)

But when Ross visited SIB headquarters and flicked through the binders of ‘evidence’ he saw something astonishing.

“The books contained Ross’s inventions in full,” says Beverly Price, “but these genuine notes comprised only about a third of the entries. The remaining two thirds had been added by other hands, and it had to be the SIB! Nobody else had access [to the binders]”.

Beverly thinks the SIB were sneakily adding extra details to the hoax to make it sound more convincing and Sherwood Young says this suspicion was backed up by the view of the police at the time.

Sherwood says prime minister Peter Fraser asked Superintendent Jim Cummings to evaluate the SIB’s evidence independently.

“Fraser said to Jim Cummings ‘have a look at this, tell me what you think,’ and Cummings says  ‘Well prime minister, I don’t believe this story and I certainly doubt it’s Ross’s story. This whole thing has been blown right out of proportion and I’m looking squarely at Folkes for it.’”

Sherwood and Beverly think the SIB made one last desperate attempt to convince the prime minister the hoax was real. They think the SIB told Ross to fake his torture at the hands of the Nazis to make it look as if the interference of the police had blown his cover.

But their efforts failed to convince Peter Fraser and Ross confessed his part in the scheme after being taken into police custody.

Major Folkes left the country in disgrace and the SIB was disestablished.

Listen to the full Black Sheep podcast to hear how the Police smeared Major Folkes by leaking the story to the press, and for more details on how Ross spent his time as “Captain Calder” in Rotorua.


The Society section is sponsored by AUT. As a contemporary university we’re focused on providing exceptional learning experiences, developing impactful research and forging strong industry partnerships. Start your university journey with us today.

Keep going!
ILLUSTRATION: ALISHA HENRY
ILLUSTRATION: ALISHA HENRY

SocietySeptember 15, 2017

What the first person to lead the Mental Health Commission says about fixing the system

ILLUSTRATION: ALISHA HENRY
ILLUSTRATION: ALISHA HENRY

Dr Barbara Disley tells Jess McAllen we need a call for action, not another review.

This story first appeared on The Wireless. Read the rest of the series here.

Newspaper headlines from 20 years ago look surprisingly familiar (“Mental Health’s Revolving Door”, “The Depressing State of Mental Health”, “Conveyer Belt to Psychiatric Ruin”).

In 1996, after a damning review, the government of the day established a Mental Health Commission to independently monitor mental health services.

The first chair of the commission (from 1996-2002) was Dr Barbara Disley, who is the current Chief Executive of Emerge Aotearoa and was made an officer of the New Zealand Order of Merit in 2011.

We spoke to Dr Disley about the current state of the mental health system and the debate about how to fix it.

The Mental Health Commission was dis-established in 2012 (the role of Mental Health Commissioner now falls under the umbrella of the Health and Disability Commissioner). Why was the original commission started in the first place?

The first Mental Health Commission was established in 1996, by the National Government, following a number of serious failures of the mental health system and an independent review headed by Judge Ken Mason.

Mental health funds were not always being spent on mental health services and community mental health services were seriously inadequate and under-resourced. He identified that it was important to address discrimination and also argued for more comprehensive Forensic Services. We are facing these same pressures again now.

I was appointed chair along with two other commissioners and a mandate to provide leadership to the sector, monitor and report directly to parliament on progress and develop the workforce and address discrimination.

The commission was to have wide sweeping powers to do the planning and funding for mental health services. The more recent Productivity Commission report suggested a similar funding agency should fund comprehensive wrap around services for the most vulnerable. Both times these recommendations have been ignored.

What did it achieve?

In close consultation with the sector, we developed the first blueprint, which set out a clear pathway for service growth and improvement. The focus of the blueprint was very clearly on more and better. Subsequent governments committed additional ring-fenced resourcing, the blueprint money enabled services to grow and new community services to be established.

The explicit plan galvanised the whole sector and people at all levels took responsibility for making things happen. The sector rose to the challenge of doing things better.

The commission took its monitoring role seriously and DHBs were required to develop comprehensive mental health plans that the commission reviewed. Their implementation of the plans was monitored as was their mental health spending and performance reported to Parliament annually by the commission.

Community services grew and the non-government sector became stronger and started providing more comprehensive services to people across a broad range of service contexts. This period also saw the voice of people who used mental health services become stronger with their ability to influence services growing.

Initially, only 1-1.5%of the population were accessing mental health services and this grew over time as the blueprint money was available to 3%.

DR BARBARA DISLEY (PHOTO: SUPPLIED)

Why then does it feel like we’re back in 1996, with headlines about mental health patient deaths and high suicide rates; and why are calls for another national review gaining strength?

In the intervening 20 years, the powers and effectiveness of the commission to provide leadership and monitor and report have been substantially diminished, its independence removed and its resourcing reduced.

It’s ironic that at the same time that New Zealand was reducing the powers of the Mental Health Commission and diminishing its role in the sector, the Canadian, Irish and each of the Australian State Governments were setting up commissions based on the New Zealand model.

We now have similar concerns about the quality of DHB services and their ability to meet burgeoning demands, despite the fact that many more people than the original 3% of the population receive services. The DHBs are under increasing financial pressures. Such pressure can provide perverse incentives to divert resources to fund deficits and support expensive infrastructures.

It’s unbelievable that in 2017 mental health services and addiction services are often very separate ideologically and physically when we know that many people (over 70%) have both issues and we also have a growing drug and alcohol problem.

The mental health system has obviously been buckling under the pressure for years now, do we need a review to take stock of the issues?

There is a view across the mental health sector that a review could be a time-wasting and costly exercise. Government has already spent money through the Productivity Commission report on better social services where there was wide consultation. The Report made substantial recommendations on how the needs of the most distressed members of our communities could be better met. These recommendations are yet to be actioned.

We know through close contact with other countries and from consumer and families’ views, that best practice includes strong community and clinical services, easy access to respite and primary health care, peer services, culturally appropriate services and trauma informed care practices.

Our view of how good mental health services can be provided has changed substantially over the last 20 years. We know that people need excellent crisis services, integrated mental health and drug and alcohol support, evidence-based clinical care,  trauma-informed care,  comprehensive community support options, access to peer support services, affordable primary care, affordable housing, education, training, work and family and community connection. We know services for Maori and Pacific peoples and Asian communities need to be led by these communities.

Many of these needs are outside the domain of the health system.  Getting things better does require us to improve the quality of the hospital and community services and the Health Quality and Safety Commission is well placed to galvanise action around this.

What should politicians consider in their mental health policies?

We need to focus on more than hospital beds. They are an essential part of the system but it’s when services are provided locally and flexibly that real gains can be made. We don’t need to spend a larger proportion of our mental health budget on more costly hospital-based services that cannot, no matter how good they are, always meet the real needs of people in the community who present with complex mental health, drug and alcohol, trauma, social, employment and housing needs.

We need a whole of government approach that integrates the way we meet these needs for people with complex and challenging problems.

We need an independent mental health planning and funding body that has the powers and the resourcing for it to comprehensively lead, plan, fund and monitor a new wave of integrated community-based services.  The new entity could galvanise sector leadership, fund new service models including DHB services that can support people early when distress emerges and identify and address the factors that contribute to it.

We need comprehensive, integrated community driven responses that coordinate with other areas like housing,  that are outcome focused and support people early and well.   We also need to ring-fence mental health resources and carefully monitor the funds to ensure that they are being used wisely to make a real difference to people in greatest need.

While it is argued often that more money is going into mental health and in particular primary health services, these services are not generally meeting the needs of the people with the highest levels of distress.

History clearly shows us that the moment the eye is taken off monitoring mental health resources, services and people suffer.

This story first appeared on The Wireless. Read the rest of the series here.

WHERE TO GET HELP WITH MENTAL HEALTH

Need to talk? Free call or text 1737 to talk to a trained counsellor, anytime.

Lifeline: 0800 543 354

Suicide Crisis Helpline: 0508 828 865 / 0508 TAUTOKO

Depression Helpline: 0800 111 757

Samaritans: 0800 726 666

Youthline: 0800 376 633  or email talk@youthline.co.nz

Healthline: 0800 611 116


The Society section is sponsored by AUT. As a contemporary university we’re focused on providing exceptional learning experiences, developing impactful research and forging strong industry partnerships. Start your university journey with us today.