NO-CONFIDENCE MOTION

Press, Volume LXX, Issue 21315, 7 November 1934, Page 12

NO-CONFIDENCE MOTION

♦ — j NATIVE AFFAIRS j REPORT | I LABOUR'S CRITICISM OF ' GOVERNMENT I i DEPARTMENTAL ADMINiSTRA- i TIOX j LFrom Our Parliamentary Reporter.] WELLINGTON, November 6. "This is the most damning indictment that has ever been laid against any Government since selfgovernment was first established in New Zealand," said the leader of J the Opposition (Mr M. J. Savage) in j the House of Representatives to-day, j when opening the debate on the re- j port of the Native Affairs Commission. "If, under the present constitutional system, the Government of the day is not to be held respon- j sible for the administration of all departments of State, there can be no security for the public welfare." Mr Savage moved the following motion, which was accepted by the Prime Minister (the Rt. Hon. G. W. : Forbes) as a no-confidence molion:— ; "That the House expresses j grave alarm at the irresponsible j methods adopted in the administration of the Native Department, j as disclosed in the report of the ! commission, and is of the opinion , that the Cabinet failed in its duty j by not immediately accepting its , collective responsibility to safe- \ guard the public funds and the : welfare of the native race when advised of the position by responsible officers of the Crown." Mr Savage said the thanks of the House and the country were due to the Controller and Auditor-General, Colonel G. F. C. Campbell, for his consistent and capable services. It had been said that he was up a tree: but it was evident from the commission's report that he had been in other places as well. The \ Royal Commission was also entitled i to thanks for the full report it had ! provided.

Ministers' Responsibility

If the Government could escape the odium which must be attached to bungling or the maladministration of a department of state by making scapegoat of one of its number who happened to be in immediate control, the present system of government was doomed, said Mr Savage. Whatever way one leaked at that unfortunate state of affairs, it must be admitted there was a collective as well as an individual responsibility resting with ministers. It was clear from the report of the commission that there was little or no co-operation between the departments of state. The evidence to that effect went back to March 10, 1932. On that date the controller and auditor-general made a complaint to the Treasury that the Native Department did not cooperate with the Lands Department nor with the Valuation Department in the making of land purchases. The Government either did not know of that, or it failed to act upon information that was available to it through various departments. Mr Savage quoted extensively from the commission's report dealing with the Te Kai dairy farming scheme and the Tihiotenga station, and went on to say a complaint regarding the Rotorua office was reported to the Minister for Finance, the Treasury, and the Public Service Commissioner on March 14, 1932, or two and a half years ago. He quoted dates ranging from March to November, 1932, on which complaints were made. Referring to the Native Department, he dealt with the purchase of McDowell's lease and said the department had asked for the return of the purchase money: but the vendors' solicitor said that as the Cabinet had approved of the purchase they could not agree. After quoting the commission's remarks, Mr Savage said the Native Department made no serious attempt to compel the solicitors to honour the agreement to return the purchase money when the Auckland Land Board refused to recommend the transfer, with a result that the Lands Department was forced to accept the position and grant the transfer. All that was reported to the Prime Minister on November 24, 1932, and in view of that it was difficult to see how the Government could be freed from blame. Attitude Summed Up Mr Savage also dealt with other aspects of the report, referring particularly to the purchase of Iles's property and Mrs Revcll's lease. He summed up his remarks as follows: "1. Cabinet Ministers have a col- | lective as well as an individual re--1 sponsibility in the control of all state departments. | "2. The former Minister for Native A/fairs, with every good intention to help the Maori people, acted in an irresponsible manner in the oversight of Maori development I schemes, the purchase of lands, and the expenditure of ''public funds. "3. There was little or no cooperation between Cabinet Ministers in the administration of the various departments of state. '•4. The report of the commission provides abundant evidence of that lack of co-operation. "5. The native race has.not received the treatment it is entitled to expect from the various governments of the day in the development of native lands and other means of livelihood." "Whatever may be said, one' is safe in saying that the people of the Dominion will be stirred by the revelations made by the commission's report, and will take the first opportunity to see that justice is done to the native race," he said. "It is well that the Maori people should be warned against those who will attempt to make them believe that they are being attacked, or that racial barriers arc likely to stand between them and justice. That can never be. Whatever mistakes have been made in their name or in the pakeha's, and they have been many, the Maori and the pakeha must make up their minds to rise or fall together." Mr R. McKeen (Lab., Wellington South) also referred to lack of cooperation among the departments, and the wasteful expenditure of public money on native development schemes. He considered that there would be a number of dismissals following on the report of the commission.

Mr W. J. Broadfoot (C., Waitomo)

said he thought the commission had adopted the wrong viewpoint. He considered that there should have been a native member on it. The report of the commission was merely an indictment of the Native Minister. The crux of the whole matter was whether they would develop the Maori race or allow those 60,000 people to become a charge on hospital boards. He paid a tribute to Sir Apirana Ngata for what he had done in the Waitomo district, and contended that the report desired to damn rather than praise. He referred to a number of schemes mentioned adversely in the report, but which had greatly benefited large areas of land. He thought that if members knew more of the great native problem they would realise the value of the attack Sir Apirana Ngata had made upon it. The commission had made mountains out of molehills, and had given no credit to a man who had done colossal work for his race. Purchase of Land Mr F. Jones (Lab., Dunedin South) said there was no doubt that much of the maladministration was due to the fault of the Government, and the resignation of one member of the Cabinet would not put the matter right. The Minister for Finance was equally responsible with the Native Minister in the purchase of land for the settlement schemes. He contended that the whole Government should have tendered their resignations and gone to the country. The Hon. A. D. McLeod (C„ Wairarapa) said it was inevitable that the development of lands in the Auckland district should be written down to 10s in the £; but the development was worth while even if it meant a loss, as there was a national responsibility to the Maori people. Mr R. Semple (Lab., Wellington East) said the whole report should be handed over to the Police Department for investigation. Mj~ H. Atmore (Ind., Nelson) said Sir Apirana Ngata had the learnin;.? of a pakeha but the generosity of the Maori race, and what appeared to be big irregularities to the pakehn mind were as nothing to the Maori mind. He thought the House should take a national outlook and give the Minister credit for the work he had done.

Mr E. T. Tirikatene (Ind., Southern Maori) referred to the large areas of Maori "lands taken by pakehas and said that under the Treaty of Waitangi they purchased 20,000,000 acres for a paltry £2OOO. The natives were asking not for sympathy but for justice. He spoke of the difficulties under which the natives were working, and said a fund should be established to assist them.

The debate was adjourned on the; motion of Sir Apirana Ngatu, and the House rose at 11.40 p.m.