NATIVE AFFAIRS

Dominion, Volume 27, Issue 70, 15 December 1933, Page 12

NATIVE AFFAIRS

Inquiry by Commission VIEW OF COMMITTEE Auditor-General’s Report MAORI LAND SCHEMES The appointment of a commission to investigate the whole of the administration of tiie Native Atlairs Department was recommended by the Public Accounts Committee, in its report presented to the House of Representatives yesterday on matters referred to in the annual report 01 the Controller and Auditor-General, Colonel G. F. C. Campbell. Dealing with file general references in that document to the public accounts, the committee expressed the view that the report .itself had mistakenly created a feeling that the financial administration was at fault.

The report of the committee, which was presented by the chairman, Mr. J. A. Nash (Govt.. Palmerston) was as follows: —

“That the prominence given to the Controller and Auditor-General's report has created an erroneous impression in respect to more or less minor matters of a technical nature. The report Itself has mistakenly created a feeling in the minds of those not well versed in public finance that the financial administration is at fault. We are of opinion that the public accounts represent a true and correct position of the financial administration of the Dominion. The committee feels that efforts should be made by the departments concerned to reach an agreement as to the accountancy practice to be adopted in the cases referred to. “With regard to that portion of the report dealing with irregularities in the Native Land Settlement administration, the committee is of the opinion that: —

“1. In view of the great expansion of its activities, especially in the execution of t»ie policy of developing Native land, the administrative machinery of the Native Department has not been sufficient to keep pace therewith or to establish efficient control over the details of expenditure. “2. That if the matters specifically indicated in the report of the Controller and Auditor-General to Parliament as arising in the Rotorua and East Coast districts are the only issues for investigation and consideration the committee is satisfied with the view of the Controller and Auditor-General that necessary investigations can be most efficiently carried out by his officers. But, in view of the great importance to the Maori race and to the Dominion of the maintenance of the policy of assisting Maoris to develop and farm their lands, and the danger that may arise at this juncture from a misunderstanding of the difficulties they labour under, or of their methods and customs in relation to the organisation of thoir labour t and activities, and in view also of the disquiet in the minds of the taxpayers of the country, the committee is of the opinion that the scope of any inquiry should be much wider than those specific issues, and therefore recommends that a commission be appointed to not only the matters arising out of the reports of the Controller and Auditor-General, but the whole of the administration of Native Affairs, especially in regard to the development of Native land and the administration of the estates of the Maori people. “3. The committee hopes that the steps already taken and in process of execution by the Government will establish this department of State on a satisfactory and efficient basis. Tlibse steps are: (a) The ' establishment of the Native Land Development Board; ’ (b) The amalgamation of control of Native Department and Native Trustee, and the appointment of a new departmental head to reorganise the whole of the joint activities; (c) The decision to rescind various statutory powers in the hands of the Native Minister, which are now transferred to the Development Board already referred to.” Wrong Impression. Mr. Nash said in regard to the difference between the Auditor and the Treasury, that’.the committee agreed that a wrong impression had gone abroad in regard to the public accounts. Their investigation showed that it was purely a matter of accountancy methods in presenting the accounts. That was all there was in it, and that, he was certain, would be adjusted as between the Auditor-General and the Treasury, The committee was fully alive to the importance of the Audi-tor-General's office. . Coming to the other question of Native land settlement, the committee had before it a number of witnesses who gave evidence in detail, and there was no suggestion of hurrying them in any way. As a matter of fact, the Native Minister himself gave evidence for no less than three hours. “It is very evident to my mind at least/’ said Mr. Nash, “after hearing the evidence, that it can be summed up in this way, that the Department has been understaffed and there has not been sufficient accommodation. That has been proved. All these developmental schemes, numbering 42, came into operation very quickly, and the result has been that some discrepancies have arisen. The Minister himself—and I think we all agree lie has had a very arduous task to perform—has undertaken a great deal of the work that should, perhaps, have been done by others.” Investigations in Progress. All investigations were still being being made by the Audit Department, lie said, and one case was before the courts, to which, of course, he could not refer. It had not been possible for the committee to go fully into the questions of the purchase of stock, seeds, manure and so forth, but that would, no doubt, be done by another tribunal* The question of unemployment subsidies loomed very large, and this was also discussed by the committee, and evidence taken. From May, 1931, to May, 1932, a sum of £BOOO was granted by the Unemployment Board. In May, 1932, £24000 was granted, and the provision made for up to March 31 next would total £79,000. There were 68,000 Maoris, ho thought, in the North Island, of whom 51,000 were in the Auckland province. There were 15,800 Maori males between the ages of 20 and 64, and in June, .1931 there were 3650 contributors to the unemployment fund. By June, 1032, there were 7240, and in June last the number had increased to 11,000. In September last 3000 Natives were on the Uneniuloyment Board’s schemes, involving

an expenditure of £166,000 per annum. He wanted to point out that the Maoris working under the Native development scheme, in particular, where the subsidy was being paid, were not receiving the same rate of pay as the pakeha. Mr. P. Fraser (Lab., Wellington Central) : What has that to .do with the alleged defalcations? Mr. Nash said the attention of the committee had been drawn very forcibly to the psychology of the Maori race and their tribal differences, and that they were a very difficult racp to handle. There could be no question about that. This country had a duty to the Maori, and the Government was called upon to. do all that It possibly could, and particularly to be sympathetic and helpful. He moved that the • report He upon the table. At the request of the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. M. J. Savage, the Prime Minister, Rt. Bon. G. W. Forbes, agreed to postpone the debate until the evening to enable copies of the committee’s report to be printed and circulated among members. Debate on Report.

When the House met in the evening Mr. Nash intimated that the compilation of the evidence had been completed sooner than he had anticipated. It was now available, and he asked leave to place it on the table. The first speaker was Mr. E. J. Howard (Lab., Christchurch South), who said that the inquiry was as thorough as it could be within the limited time at the disposal of the committee. His general impression after sitting on the committee for two days was that there had been thieving going on. The Prime Minister: Is not that sub judice? Mr. 1 Howard replied that he was not referring to a particular case, but to what had been proved by the AuditorGeneral. ■ Admittance of Press. Mr. D. G. Sullivan (Lab., Avon) said he thought the Press should have been admitted, but one influential member had succeeded in persuading the committee otherwise. Voices: Question! The Minister of Finance, Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates: You know there was no authority. Mr. Sullivan: I hope the hon. gentleman will not attempt to mislead the House or pull wool over its eyes. I know the question of ajithority was discussed and that it was pointed out that the permission of Mr. Speaker was required. Mr. Speaker: The hon. gentleman is under a misapprehension. The Speaker cannot give authority for the admission of the Mr. Sullivan said he wanted to be quite fair to Mr. Coates. When he himself raised the question at the beginning of the committee’s deliberations Mr. Coates pointed out that the matter could be mentioned again at a later stage. Mr. Coates: I don’t think the hon. gentleman wishes to be unfair. I did point out that if we decided to admit the Press we could not take evidence until the House met again as its permission was required. Mr. Sullivan : I will put it this way: I don’t think the hon. gentleman was anxious to have the Press there.

Mr. Coates: That is utterly unfair. Mr. W. J. Broadfoot (Govt., Waitomo) : Unfair and incorrect.

Reduction of Pensions.

Mr. Sullivan said the explanation given by the Treasury, by the Minister, and, he thought, by the chairman, was that in their view it was the intention of. the House that the reduction in pensions should date from April 1. It must be obvious to the House, and, indeed, everybody, that neither the Minister, nor anybody else, knew what was the Intention of the House. They might know the intention of the Government, but not that of the House. There was absolutely no justification, moral or legal, for the action of the Government, acting under instructions from the Minister, in reducing pensions as from 2\.pril 1,- even if it were the intention of the Government "t 6 introduce validating legislation. What guarantee was there that the validating legislation would have been approved by the House? He hoped that no such legislation would be agreed to, and the amount be paid to the pensioners, as they were entitled by every moral and legal consideration. Mr. H. T. Armstrong (Lab., Christ church East), said he thought the comments contained in the Auditor-Gen-eral’s report was sufficient to cause the resignation of the Government. He would draw attention to the comments made by the Auditor-General upon the High Commissioner’s office in London. His remarks upon that department were just about as strong as they were in regard to the Native Department. The Minister of Finance: What does he say?

Mr. Armstrong: I am not going to read the whole of the report for the edification of the Minister. If he has not read it himself, he should have done so before he sat on the committee nt all. Mr. Armstrong added that the report of the Auditor-General was as severe a criticism of departmental management as had ever been made In New Zealand. Minister’s Position. Mr. Broadfoot said It was plain to him that there was a desire on the part of certain' members to try the Native Minister. Mr. W. E. Parry (Lab.,. Auckland Central): Cut out that stuff. Mr. Broadfoot claimed that there had not been sufficient evidence placed before the committee to justify any such action against the Minister. The handling of the Native unemployment scheme was a very difficult matter. The unemployment committee found tremendous difficulty in keeping trace of the men, in finding their requirements, and in handling the whole situation. The Native Minister was given a lump sum to handle the situation to the best advantage. He thought wonderfully productive results had been obtained from the expenditure of the sums. He admitted that was where looseness had come in. When all the losses were totted up he did not think members would have many misgivings, so far as Native land settlement was concerned. The Minister had endeavoured to train men on the right lines, and was deserving of the highest commendation. Mr. E. T. Tirikatene (Ind., Southern Maori) blamed the Government for the whole affair. He welcomed the commission, but at the same time trusted that the Government would allow the Audi tor-General to continue with his investigation. Mr. Walter Nash (Lab., Hutt) said he could not understand why Mr. Broadfoot had set out to defend the Maori race when it had not been charged in any way. The Maori race was not on trial. He was satisfied that the committee had done right in asking that a commission should be set up, and suggested that while the inquiry was bqing held the Minister should temporarily relinquish control of his department In order that his officers might bo freer to give their evidence. “I have had something to do with the Native Minister,” said Mr. Nash, “and while I may disagree with him on questions of policy, I am satisfied he has

done splendid wor kon behalf of the Maori people.” Mr. T. Te Tomo (Govt., Western Maori), speaking through an interpreter, said if capital were made out of the .position, all the benefits of Native development would be lost. He had absolute faith in the Native Minister in developing Native land schemes throughout the Dominion. Mr. H. G. R. Mason (Lab., Auckland Suburbs) said he believed the report was really an indictment' against the Government. Impartial Report. The Prime Minister, Rt Hon. G. W. Forbes, said he wished to take the opportunity qf complimenting the committee upon the manner in which it had carried out its duties. The report was very fair and impartial, and the Government was prepared to accept the recommendations. The debate, said Mr. Forbes, had been very fair. Mr. Parry: With a sense of honour we could do nothing else. Mr. Speaker: Order! Mr. Forbes said it would be unfortunate if the people formed an impression that the Maoris were not as reliable as they might be. Mr. A. J. Stallworthy (Ind., Eden): Nobodfr suggested that.

Mr. Forbes said he was not referring to members of Parliament. The committee’s recommendation on Maori development was a valuable one, and would enable a stocktaking to be made. The Maoris should be encouraged to carry on. So far as the Irregularities were concerned, investigations were now taking place. The Government had been criticised for not taking steps to meet the position a year ago, but he reminded the Opposition that following upon a previous report of the AuditorGeneral a Native Lands Settlement Board was set up. This body was given power to exercise the fullest control. Mr. W. Nash: Well, what have they been doing? Mr. Forbes said he had not heard one word that the board was not functioning efficiently. The first he knew about it was when the report of the Auditor-General was presented recently. Mr. Parry: Who is responsible for that? Mr. Forbes: It was the duty of the officers on the board to have reported the matter to me. They did not do that. In referring to pensions, Mr. Forbes pointed out that it was the expressed intention of the Government that the reductions should operate as from April 1, but by an oversight on the part of the law drafting office this had not been stipulated in the Bill. Auditor-General's Posiion. The Leader of the Opposition, Mr. M. J. Savage, referred'to a statement made by the Prime Minister that the Audi-or-General’s opinion was not the last word. It looked as if Parliament was taking a pretty serious stand as, when the Auditor-General found fault in the administration of public affairs, it was going to put him in front of a Parliamentary committee to hear the other side. He was not so sure hat there was another side when the AuditorGeneral spoke. When one went over the Auditor-General’s remarks on the public accounts over a number of years, there was scarcely one year in which there had not been some condemnation of public accounts generally. He thought the Royal Commission should investigate the whole of the AuditorGeneral’s report. The Minister of Finance: Parliament is not going to set up a commission to say whether the Auditor-General is right or not. Mr. Savage said in the first place a Royal Commission could say whether the Government of the day could stop paying a pension before it was legally right to do so. He suggested that the Auditor-General’s report be considered by a Royal Commission presided over by a judge of the Supreme Court, which would consider the evidence submitted to it. Such a commission would not claim to know a great deal about land settlement, but it would claim to know a great deal about the complication of evidence, and the preparation of it report dealing with it. (Left sitting.).