NATIVE AFFAIRS ADMINISTRATION

Evening Post, Volume CXVI, Issue 144, 15 December 1933, Page 5

NATIVE AFFAIRS ADMINISTRATION

PROTRACTED DEBATE IN HOUSE

COMMISSION TO BE APPOINTED

AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORT

The House of Representatives sat till 4.20 o'clock this morning discussing the report of the Public Accounts Committee relating to the contents of the' Controller and Auditor-General's report, the discussion on which began a few minutes after 3 o'clock yesterday afternoon. Whilst speakers mainly directed their attention to Colonel Campbell's strictures on the administration of the Native Department, several Labour members pointed out that the AuditorGeneral had agreed with their view that cuts in the old age pensions were made a month before the legislation, authorising the cuts operated. Members on both sides of the House took pains to keep clear of personalities in discussing the administration pf the Native Department, and made it clear that they appreciated the ambitious efforts of Sir Apirana TNgata to push on with Native land development. The report of the Public Accounts committee which recommended'the appointment of a Commissioner to investigate Native Affairs was tabled.

Mr. E. J. Howard (Labour, Christchurch South) said that the inquiry was as thorough as it was possible to be in the limited time that was at the disposal of the Committee. The Treasury Department had submitted twenty-four points in answer to the points raised by the Auditor-General. The Labour members of the Committee had' protested against reductions being made in certain classes of pensions before the date stipulated in the Act, as it had been stated, that the Government was bringing down legislation validating its action. Mr. W. E. Barnard (Labour, Napier): It was illegal. Mr. Howard said many of the questions raised by the Auditor-General had been largely technical. The main question was the Auditor-General's comments on the Native Land Settlement accounts, which had also been commented upon in the previous year's report. Tho House had been stunned by the remarks in the repoit, which showed that there was something wrong with tho accounts. Mr. P. Fraser (Labour, Wellington Central): They were all wrong. Mr. W. J. Broadfoot (Government, Waitomo): That is unfair. Mr. Howard: They were not all wrong. ■' The accounts were in such a muddle that it was impossible for the Auditor-General to unravel them and say what was right. Mr. Howard said that one individual who had the job of obtaining signatures on vouchers had got the Natives to sign them without the amounts first being inscitcd. It had also been shown that money from tho Unemployment Fund, which had amounted to £81,000 last year, had been used for the purchase of seed to bo placed on land occupied by, persons who were not suffering from unemployment. Payments from unemployed moneys had also been made to . men who were not on relief works. ACCOUNTS IN A MUDDLE. Tho accounts generally were in such a muddlo that it was probable that the Commission, which it was pioposed should be set up, would find that the muddle was greater than tho thieving. However, when there was a muddle, the opportunity arose for those who had sticky fingers, and thieving had been going on. The Primo Minister (the Rt. Hon. G. W. Forbes): Isn't that caso sub judice? Mr. Howard said that he was not referring to any particular case, but only to what had been proved by, the Auditor-General. It had been definitely shown by tho original vouchers that things were wrong, but it was almost impossible at present to put one's finger on the source of the trouble. A complaint that, while the whole of the; Committee's findings were contained in the report of the Public Accounts Committee, the sequence of the findings had been so arranged that it was possible to take a wrong interpretation pf the report was made by Mr. D. G. Sullivan (Labour, Avon). The Committee had really concentrated on the Native land settlement difficulties, and he was sure that had the Committee seen the report befdre it was presented to the House, its findings in this respect would have had the most prominent place. FAITH IN AUDITOR-GENERAL. '' If there is one feature that stands out more than another, it is that there is no reflection on and no whittling down= of, the Auditor-General's report," said Mr. Sullivan. He .said that the, Committee had revealed its faith in the Auditor-General, and every member of the Committee had been afforded the fullest freedom to examine officers and documents. The only objection.: which he had was that the representatives of the newspapers had not been present at the Committee proceedings. He had made a move in that direction, but one influential member of the Committee had persuaded the Committee against it.- , Mr. W. J. Broadfoot (Government, Waitomo): Question! State the facts. The Et. Hon J. G. Coates (to Mr. Sullivan): You know quite well that is not the situation. . Mr. Sullivan: I hope you will not try to mislead the House. The question was discussed in the Committee, and it was'pointed but that the authority of Mr. Speaker was necessary. Mr. Coates: It wasn't Mr. Speaker at all. . ■■. » Mr. Speaker explained that it was not a question for him to decide, but one for the House. Mr. P. Fraser (Labour, Wellington Central): Did the Minister of Finance oppose tho newspapers being present? Mr. Coates: No. ■ Mr. Sullivan: At that stage, yes. At the beginning, he was - opposed to it, but said that the question could be raised at a later, stage. Mr. Coates: I pointed out that if the newspapers were to be present, the Committee could not take evidence until the House met so that the authority of the House could be secured. Mr. Sullivan: The Minister knows that he did not give any encouragement to the proposal to admit the newspapers. ' Mr. Coates: That is unfair. Mr. Broadfoot: Unfair and incorrect. Mr. Sullivan: The member for Waitomo sits there and cackles away Mr. Speaker: Order! You must withdraw that remark. Mr. Sullivan withdrew the and did not pursue the question further. Dealing with the other matters contained ,in the report of the AuditorGeneral, Mr. Sullivan said that the country was well served by both the Auditor-General and Treasury. Of the twenty-four points which were submitted to the Committee, twenty-two of them couia have been fairly described as being differences of opinion as to the correct-professional practice. '' GOVERNMENT INVOLVED.' * "Everyone will recognise the great effort made by the Minister of Native Affairs in the schemes he originated, to

educate his people in the production methods of the pakeha," continued Mr. Sullivan. "It is unquestionable that they should be carried ou in the future, and it is in the interest of the Natives and the Dominion that the work should be carried on with the undesirable features eliminated. The inquiries made by the Committee did not soften in any way the charges made by the AuditorGeneral.' I think that the Government as, a whole is involved, because the Auditor-General drew attention to the unsatisfactory state of the accounts last year. Although that was a year sgo, apparently nothing has been done.'.' The Prime Minister: The law was altered. Mr. Sullivan; The law was altered to set up a board, but why that board didn't function the Lord only knows. Was it: allowed to function? ■ Mr. Sullivan pointed out tWat in his opinion; a very heavy responsibility lay on the Government, as it had done nothing to rectify the position during the, year. 'Interim reports had been sub y niittcd by the Auditor-General in June, 1932, and June, 1933, drawing attention to the situation, but no action had been taken. It was now proposed to remove from the Native Minister the powers which he had, but this step should have been taken a year ago. • CASE OF BARRY. ■Mr. Sullivan also referred to the dismissal of a departmental officer named Barry, who, he said, had refused to sign certain vouchers because he was dissatisfied with the position.' Barry had also submitted reports criticising the economics of some of the Minister's schemes. When Banry had had a dispute with the Natives concerning these matters, the head of the Department, according to the evidence ho gave to the Committee, had received a telephoned order from the Minister to "sack Barry." . "If ever an injustice has been done to anyone, it has been done to Barry," he added. "I believe that the Minister of Financo was interested in tho Barry case, and 1 gathered the impression that ho felt strongly that the dismissal of Barry was unjustifiable.1 I know that when tho matter was dealt with by a Committee of this House, the Committee recommended the reinstatement of Barry. This was not done." Mr. H. T. Armstrong (Labour, Christchurch East) said there was scarcely a Department of State that was not severely criticised by the AuditorGeneral, and now it was proposed by the government to introduce legislation, to legalise a series of illegal acts. He could: not understand why the Native Department alone had been selected as the subject of a Koyal Comsion. "I think we want a Commission in respect of practically every Department," said Mr. Armstrong. "In fact, the comments of. the Auditor-General are sufficient to cause the resignation of the Government, .which should submit itself for the approval of the people. That is the sort of Commission that is wanted to put'things right." Mr. A, J. Stallworthy (Independent, Eden)': Hear, hear. Mr. Armstrong said that he did not know that the Native Minister had been any more extravagant than the present. Minister of Finance had been when he was Minister of Public Works; He was wondering what would be said by the newspapers if a similar report' was presented by the Auditor-General about a Labour Administration. "Why, the papers would npt be big, enough to hold it all," said Mr. Armstrong. He went on to criticise the action of the Government in imposing the pension cuts before the right time, and said it would be a graceful act on the part of the Government if the money which the pensioners had lost was made up to them as a Christmas present. Mr. Broadfoot said that as Mr. Sullivan had had a good deal to do with the rewriting of the report of the Committee, it was his own fault if that document' contained no reference to pensions. Ho felt an attempt was being made in some quarters to try the Native Minister and the Native Land Development Board. Mr. W. E. Parry (Labour, Auckland Central): That?s not right. Keep that out of it. OTHER PECULATIONS. Mr. Broadfoot said there had not been sufficient evidence placed before the Committee of the House to warrant such a stand being taken. Before the Committee the Auditor-General had not given any definite 'information as to the question of alleged deficiencies or wrongdoings; and he suggested to the House that in other sections of the Auditor-General's report there were matters just as vital as the Native land development schemes which deserved serious consideration. It should be noted that there had been peculations in the Labour Department totalling £.943, in the Justice Department totalling £388, and in the P. and T. Department amounting to £600. Against the High Commissioner's Office in London was charged peculations totalling £2666. In that case, however, the report did not indicate that it was an officer of the Audit Department—the chief auditor in London and his chief assistant—who were responsible. That omission was a grave oversight and unfair to the High Commissioner and his staff in Londou. (Hear, hear.) Speaking as one who had lived ail his life in Native- territory, Mr. Broadfoot paid a tribute to the success of the Native Minister in his land development schemes, which he described as being the first genuine and practical attempt to solve outstanding problems and differences between the Maori and pakeha. As a result, the Minister had prevented the race from becoming 70,000 charges on the State. "Wonderful!" commented Mr. A. S. Richards (Labour, Boskill). Mr. Broadfoot: If you could do anything one-thousandth part as wonderful I would take my hat off to you, but I will be keeping my hat on forever. Mr. Broadfoot said the men required for field supervision work had to possess peculiar capacity, including a knowledge of the psychology of the Natives and .of their jealousies, tribal

difficulties, and hates. The Minister had had confidence in the men selected for the work. Insinuations'had been made that the Minister had been responsible for the dismissal of a European officer, but the truth was that there had been incompatibility of temperament between that officer and one of the leading Native women handling the' 'scheme. The question v was as to whether the. scheme should be stopped or whether the man should be transferred to another Department. The Public Service Commissioner had suggested that the man go back to the Lands Department, and the only reason he had not been re-engaged was that there was no vacancy. Throughout the development schemes, concerning which nearly 6000 were employed in productive capacities, the main desire of the Minister had been to get the -best out of the workers. By linking unemployed with that productive work wonderful results had been obtained for the expenditure. When full inquiry was made ■it would be found that the operations of the Department would compare more than favourably with those of any other Department in the State service. PARLIAMENT'S RESPONSIBILITY. "1 agree there has been muddJement and inefficiency, but we have to expect there would be some modicum of this," continued Mr. Broadfoot. "Parliament passed the legislation, and every member must take a share of the responsibility for the enipowu-ing legislation. But in the rapidity oi growth of this extraordinary development scheme there must have been lapses here and there." He contended that had the Minister not hacj breadth of authority the scheme would have been strangled at " birth. For what had happened the Development Board must take some responsibility; it was unreasonable to centre any attack on the Minister himself. Sir Apirana had intimated his intention of retiring from politics at the end of the present term, and he had made earnest endeavours to train a band of men to take his place and carry on with the good work. The material he had to work on was untried. One had to remember that sixty years ago the Natives killed and ate each other. Mr. Fraser: It is a pity you were not there then. Mr. Broadfoot: Had you been aliv.e you would have made a tasty morsel. Mr. Fraser: That is more than your argument' is. Mr. Broadfoot contended that when all the facts were known and the costs and losses analysed, the House would have^ no. misgivings as far as Native land development schemes were concerned. The result of the. findings of a Royal Commission would show that a magnificent effort had been made by the Minister and the Native Land Development Board and its staff, and any frailties would be of small account when compared with the size of the operations of the scheme. PAKEHAS AS WELL. Mr. E. T. Tirikatene (Independent, Southern Maori) said that he blamed the Government for the whole affair. The powers of the Native Minister were undoubtedly great, but he would not say that those powers were responsible for the present position. -Furthermore, not only we're Maoris involved, but pakehas as well, as there were many pakehas in the Native Department. He suggested that there should be a more detailed system of accounts in connection with each Maori settlement scheme. Legislation on behalf of the Maoris has been put through too fast, but the Maoris were prepared to face up to the position, and, if necessary, take their gruel. Mr. A. J. Murdoch (Government, Marsden): Didn't the hoh. gentleman get any money out of it? Mr. Tirikatene: No, sir. The South Island is not involved in the allegations of extravagance. Mr. Tirikatene added that:the. South' Island Maoris had received only small amounts. The fact that the Government was introducing legislation showed that it was not satisfied with the present position. It was to be hoped that the Auditor-General and his staff would be allowed to continue their investigations. It was essential that they should get the root of the questions which had been raised, so that everything would be cleared up. • 'FOOLING THE HOUSE." ' Mr. W. Nash (Labour, Hutt) saia that Mr. Broadfoot had only been decerving the House by defending the Maori race, because no charges of any sort had been, made against the Maori race. '' For a member to get up in his place and endeavour to draw a red herring across the trail, as the member for Waitomo has' don«, is simply fooling the House," said Mr. Nash. "He has, I submit, indicted the Maori race by defending, it. As a matter of fact, the Maori race is as able and of as high a character as any other race I "know, and there was no need for the member for Waitomo to defend them against a charge that has never been made." Mr. Nash said that Mr. Broadfoot had brought the Native land development schemes into the debate, but no one had ever suggested that the Native Minister or the officers of the Department were not entitled to great crdit for what had been achieved. Referring to the cut in .pensions, Mr. Nash said that the Government had clearly broken, the law. No Government, no matter how powerful its majority was, had the right to fly in the face of the law. If the Government realised it had made a mistake it should rectify it and pay the pensioners what was undoubtedly owing to them. The Government had broken the law on more than one occasion. Mr. F. Langstone (Labour, Waimarino): They ought to resign. ■Eeferring to the section of the report dealing with Native lands, Mr. Nash said he was convinced that the Committee had done the right thing in suggesting that a Commission should be set up. He had a great admiration for what had been done by the Native Minister for the Maori race, but he thought the whole question should be settled. He suggested that Sir Apirana Ngata should resign the position of Native Minister, without resigning from Cabinet, in order that the officers of the Native Department could give their evidence before the Commission freely and frankly. * Mr. T. Te Tomo (Government, Western Maori) said that for years the Maoris had had a great struggle to get on to the path of progress. Although he had at one time opposed the Native Minister, he was now convinced of the great benefit to the Maori people the land development schemes were. The Native Minister was in the same position as an employer who engaged a number of men to drive his carts. _ If one of the men fell out of a cart into the water, the employer could not be blamed. The Native Minister administered his Department from Wellington, and if one of his officers made a break, that officer and^not the Minister should be held blameworthy. He was apprehensive that, if capital were made out of the scandal, the land development schemes might stop. He hoped, there would be a thorough inquiry and that the discussions would be conducted calmly. Mr. H. G. B. Mason (Labour, Auckland Suburbs) said that only a generation ago it was thought that there was no future before the Maori people at all, and in the small bond which had transformed the Maori people the Native Minister had occupied an honourable place. One had also to recognise the temperament of the Maori people, but at the same time one asked what the Government was doing in allowing the accounts to get into a bad state. The economy measures had depleted the staffs until proper super-

vision could not be exercised, and the previous warping of the Auditor-Gene-ral had been ignored. The report was an indictment of the Government. PRIME MINISTER'S ATTITUDE. The Prime Minister said he thought the House would realise the wisdom of sending the report to a Committee. He complimented the Committee on the manner in which it had done its work, and tho impartial attitudo it had adopted. He had intimated when the Committee was set up that he would be prepared to accept any recommendation it made, and that- was still his attitude. He thought the attitude taken up by members had been very fair. Suggestions had been made that the Maori race was not sufficiently reliable to be able to look after its own business, but he did not think members of Parliament held that view. He thought it would bo an. advantage to set up a Commission to investigate tho whole question of .Native land settlement, the employment of Maoris, and other questions of vital importance to the Maori pepplc. He had had an opportunity of seeing the various schemes in operation, and he was satisfied that something of a very substantial character had been accomplished. ' Complaint had been made that the Government had done nothing _ to rectify the position when the Auditor-., General previously pointed out the position in. the Native Department, but the fact was that the Government had acted on the report and had set up a Native Land Development Board. Mr. W. Nash: But what has the board,been doing? . j Mr. Forbes said he had been under the impression tliat the board had been functioning. If the board thought that the work which was being carried out by the Native Department was getting into a state of muddle it should have reported that fact to the Government. Mr. W. Nash: Did the board appear before the Committee? Mr. Forbes: I don't know whether it appeared or not. v The Prime Minister went onto Bay that they placed a great deal of reliance on the Auditor-General, but it had to ; be remembered that his was not the last word. If the Auditor-General made charges against officers of the Government it was only right that thdse officers should be given an opportunity of defending themselves. Eeferring the reductions .in pensions, Mr. Forbes said it had always been' the intention of the Government that the cuts should operate from April 1, and the fact that that had not been made clear in the legis-, lation was due to an oversight on the part of the Law Drafting office, "THE OTHER SIDE." The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. M. J. Savage) said that the Prime Minister had said that the Auditor-General was not the last word. It seemed that Parliament was taking a serious stand if, when the Auditor-General found fault with the accounts, he was to be taken before a Committee in order that the other side should be heard. If the Auditor-General was qualified for his job, one wai not sure that there was another side. Mr. Savage said that he wished to compliment the Committee on its work and also compliment the Prime Minister on muzzling the House. Tho suggestion had been made that the Native Minister and the' Maori race were on trial, but he had not heard those allegations being made. The Maori was just as qualified as the pakeha to handle money and administer affairs. The Prime. Minister had defended the employment of superannuated public servants, but surely a man who had been drawing a large salary and was now drawing substantial superannuation should make way for someone else. Mr. Coates: Irrespective of cost! Mr. Savage: Don't talk to us about COSt. ' ■■■...■•■■ . •■':■' Mr. Savage added that there was scarcely a report made by the AuditorGeneral which did not contain some condemnation of the administration of public affairs generally. The Minister of Native Affairs had at least been active in the administration of his Department, and that was more than could be said of some of the other Ministers. It was not fair to concentrate on the Native Affairs Department. The Boyal Commission should investigate the whole of the report of the Auditor-General. Mr. Coates: Surely Parliament is not going to set up a Royal Commission to say whether the Auditor-General is right or not. That is a matter for Parliament to say. Mr. Savage said that a Royal Commission could say whether the Government's action over the pension reductions was legal or not. He hoped that the House would be able to take it for granted that the Auditor-General and his officers would continue their investigations. The Commission that was to be appointed should be a real Commission which would have the confidence of the people as well as Parliament, and the Government could make no better choice for the chairman than a Judge of the Supreme Court, who was skilled in the collecting and sifting of evidence, , Mr. C. A. Wilkinson (Independent, Egmont) said that the Committee had considered that the only possible way of getting an inquiry that would satisfy the House and the country was by a Royal Commission. TWO DISMISSALS. Mr. R. McKeen (Labour, Wellington South) prefaced his remarks by stating that he did not intend to attack the Minister personally. jHo said that he would like to refer to some matters of administration, and remarked that he had copies of letters from the Department's file in his possession. He had been unable to understand the attitude adopted towards Mr. Gutherie, a farm expert employed in the development work. Mr. Gutherie has discovered that stock was being stolen and sold, and in Bpite of the fact that he had reported the matter, n« prosecution was taken. "That stock was purchased by Government money," said Mr. McKeen, "and shortly after that Mr. Gutherje was dismissed." .' Mr. R. Semple (Labour, Wellington East): Oh! • Mr. McKeen referred to the fact that up to 1931, £32,000 was spent on the Teakau scheme, and in 1929 it was valued at £11,000. "It cost the taxpayers £32,000," said Mr. McKeen, "and yet at the time of peak prices it was valued at £11,000. Further, implements had been discovered by the expe t scattered all over the place. The hands on that scheme were being paid 6s a day." , . The Minister: This is not one of the Department's schemes. Mr. McKeen said that the Kaihau scheme was the Minister's scheme. The Minister: The Waikato Board is financing that .entirely. Mr. McKeen alleged that on ■ one scheme 49 men- were employed, whereas there was work for only three. Princess Te Puea put in. her accounts of £49 Is for wages for the employees, and Barry, who was practically in charge, considered that he could recommend payment of only £22 10s; that was for three men's wages ;at 3s 6d a day. Barry Tefused to recommend any more, and he forwarded a letter to Judge McCormack, who upheld his attitude. t , PRINCESS IN A RAGE. The Judge stated! that Princess Te Puea went to see him in a rage because of Barry's attitude, and the Judge had told her that he upheld the recommendation made by Barry, and that he was awaiting a reply from the Minister as to what should be done. In the ineantimej Parry, inquired, -as—to

what was going to be done in regard to the payment of the money, and whether the matter was to be viewed from an economic or philanthropic standpoint. '' Shortly , after that,'' continued Mr; McKeen, "it was discovered that, psychologically, Barry was incompatible as a European with Natives, and that was the reason why he was dismissed." He had been transferred to the Native Department after long service with the Lands and Agriculture Departments. He had gone to the Native Department when the Minister had asked for experts to assist him with the land settlement scheme. Ministers of the Crown stated that the Public Service Commissioner engaged or dispensed with the services of public officers. Mr. McKeen said that the Minister had given verbal instructions that Barry was to be dismissed, but subsequelty it Was generally considered that those instructions had been withdrawn. Later, the Department wished to send Barry to Wanganui, and the Minister reiterated his decision that Barry's: .services should bo dispensed with. Barry was an extremely capable man who had been specially chosen for the job. Mr. McKecn riaid that he believed that the Minister had considered that the development work could be carried out just as efficiently by the Maoris. STAFF SHORTAGE. In his statement to tho House th» Minister had stated that he had. been handicapped by a short staff, but if that was so it was his own fault as he had been responsible for the dismissal of expert.supervisors. The Minister had been agreeable that Princess Te Puea should "keep 49 people on the Waikato scheme and that they should. be paid; Had Barry; agreed to that he would have been retained. When the Prime Minister had returned from England and had stated that no unemployment relief should be paid unless work was done for the money, the Native Minister had described the statement as a noble utterance —it was magnificent—but when it came to the scheme administered by Princess Te Puea payment was made without w;6rk. ■ There was enough work for only three people, and rfertainly no work for 49, who had to be housed, clothed, and fed. The Minister had done a grave injustice to Barry. He had no right to dismiss him. Instead he should have stated that Barry's services were no longer required by his Department and should have recommended that he be transferred back to his old' Department. The Minister had stated that he had not been responsible for Barry's dismissal, but Mr. McKeen said that he had heard that statement 'so many times that he was sick of it. * He had found that it was the Minister who was generally responsible forVthe dismissal of men in the Public Service,, The Public Service Commissioner was in the position of a scavenger who had to carry out Ministerial instructions for appointments or, dismissals. It was time that they considered the position of the Public Service Commissioner's Department, which appeared to be a, waste of money. Mr. McKeen said that the setting up of a Commission was justified, but he did not know what the Minister would do while the Commission was sitting. If he were in the Minister's position he would resign until the investigations had been carried out and the judgment delivered. There was ho doubt that the AuditorGeneral had done his duty and Parliament should see that there was no whitewashing of the questions he had raised. The Auditor-General should be encouraged by Parliament to continue his work. "SLIPPING BIT BY BIT." Mr. R. A. Wright (Government, Wellington Suburbs) said that the Prime Minister had stated that the AuditorGeneral might have considered the Maori people unreliable, but there was no justification for that opinion. Where a Minister of the Crown had almost absolute power and was chairman of a board composed almost wholly of civil servants, the Minister had to take a major share of the responsibility for any maladministration. If there was no Auditor-General tht House would know only what the Government desired to tell it. "We are slipping bit by bit and getting away from sound government," said Mr. Wright. The recommendation .to set up a Royal' Commission was sound. The Government should have taken action after the report of the National Expenditure Commission. Mr. R. Semple (Labour, Wellington' East) said it would be'premature for anyone to pass judgment on the Native Minister in view of the fact that a Commission was to be set up. Mr. P. Fraser (Labour, Wellington Central) contended that the Ministry had a responsibility to shoulder in al« lowing the Native Department to become understaffed and get out of control. The Development Board had never been called together and had never functioned. The report of the Committee was tabled and the House adjourned.at 4.25 a.m. until this afternoon.