NATIVE AFFAIRS

Evening Star, Issue 22106, 13 August 1935, Page 6

NATIVE AFFAIRS

DISCLOSURES OF COMMISSION CABINET'S RESPONSIBILITY POSITION AS ANALYSED BY LABOUR The alleged misdeeds of the Government in power, and particularly those of Cabinet, were vigorously criticised by Mr R. Semple, M.P., in an address given last night at Mosgiel before a fairly large and an obviously attentive audience. Concentrating in the main on the manner in which the Native Affairs Department was conducted up till the sitting of the commission, Mr Semple, who quoted portions of the report and produced documents to support his statements, spoke with considerable warmth and confidence, illustrating his remarks by references to definite instances of what he termed incompetence, inefficiency, dishonesty, fraud, and forgery.. Moreover, he gave it as his opinion that Cabinet was responsible for the actions of its Minister and for the maladministration of the department’s affairs. The speaker was appropriately introduced by the Mayor of Mosgiel (Mr A. F. Quelch), who was in the chair. At the outset Mr Semple declared that, except in the case of one or two papers, the facts as revealed in the commission’s report had been concealed deliberately from the public of New Zealand, who, being taxpayers, should know just what had taken place in the Parliament of their country. The number of complaints and charges which the commission was instructed to investigate and report upon was 121. After having sat for six months and after having examined 147 witnesses, it found that 80 of the charges were true. Forty-one were described as “ minor ” or “ not within the order of reference." However, it should be noted carefully that 80 were proved to be true, and that _ they included instances of maladministration, embezzlement, misappropriation, and forgery. If an ordinary citizen committed some of these offences against private employers, the public service, or anybody else he would be liable to prosecution and imprisonment. “ In 1930,’’ said Mr Semple, “ the Government amended the law to give to the Native Minister more power than any other Minister of the Crown possessed or ever had possessed. The Government was responsible for giving the Native Minister the right to ignore the Land Valuation Department or any other department he cared to. It gave him the power to spend money when he liked or how he liked. Hence all the muddlement and extravagance committed by the department. I .challenge the Government to take action if I am stating a case that will not bear investigation, I would not dare speak like this from a public platform unless I had proof positive that what I say is true.” . It was a fact, continued Mr Semple, that the Native Minister had handed in his resignation to the GovernorGeneral. But that did not exonerate the Cabinet and the Government from blame for the whole sorry mess. The Gbvernmnet knew for a period of some years what was going on, and collectively Cabinet must be held responsible for the actions of any of its Ministers. No Government could escape blame by making a scapegoat of any one of its Ministers, for it stood responsible for everything done by one of its departments. In support of this contention, the speaker quoted Lord Morlcy, one of the most eminent legal authorities in the world, as having stated that collective responsibility of this nature was the fundamental principle on which the Mother of Parliaments had functioned for centuries. Other eminent authorities, including Ramsay Muir, had laid it down that this was the accepted principle, and that any departure from it was dangerous. On the strength of it, therefore, the Cabinet should have resigned with the Native Minister. . Mr Semple went on to say that m 1932 the National Expenditure Commission, in its . report, complained that thipgs were not all they should be in the Department of Native Affairs, and subsequently the Government established the Maori Development Board, or some organisation of the kind. However, although it was proved that the purpose of the board was to clip the wings of the Native Minister, the board had never functioned. “ The AuditorGeneral also complained to the Prime Minister of the drift and steadily increasing loss in the department,” went on Mr Semple. “ Moreover, he referred not only to that period but, also to 1931. In 1933 he again drew the attention of the Government to the affairs of the department, and, as a result, one man was put in gaol. There should have been a dozen with him.” In analysing concrete cases, which he said proved the truth of his statements, he instanced a land transaction wherein the Native Minister was stated to have purchased 367 acres of land in the Rotorua district for £1,330 7s 6d. No report was secured before the purchase, and subsequently it was ascertained from the Government valuation that the lessee’s whole interest in the property was £725. The Auckland Land Transfer Office refused to sign the transfer because the price paid was too high, and it made the request that the purchase money should be returned to the Treasury. However, the money had been paid to the vendor’s solicitor, and he refused to part with it. The Native Minister, declared Mr Semple, acquiesced in this attitude. The solicitor was urged to hold the money, and the Minister then proceeded to spend £1,500 on a property for which no transfer had been granted. After this the transfer was signed. After giving instances of other purchases in which, he said, the Government valuation was much below the purchase price, Mr Semple stated that one official in the department who had refused to sign a false pay roll was summarily dismissed from the service. The man submitted an appeal, but while he received consideration from the House he did not receive practical sympathy from the Cabinet. He was not reinstated. “lam pleased to say, however,” said Mr Semple, “ that this honest man was given an important' position with the Associated Banks. Apparently the banks want honest men and Cabinet does not.” Turning his attention fco unemployment matters, the member of Parliament said that the Unemplyoment Fund had been used in a manner that would stagger the Dominion if all the facts were made known. An insurance company—on© of the wealthiest in the world—had been subsidised by the fund for building purposes to the extent of £17,000. He asked his listeners to judge whether or not it was fair that this money should be diverted from the j people who most needed it. “ Sir A. Ransom will tell the people I ©f Dunedin on Wednesday night what

the Government has done for them,” said Mr Semple. “ T shall reply to him on Thursday night.” The speaker, who was given an enthusiastic reception, received a hearty vote of thanks at the conclusion of his address.