NATIVE AFFAIRS

Greymouth Evening Star, 14 May 1934, Page 12

NATIVE AFFAIRS

: AUDIT INSPECTOR'S EVIDENCE [I’JCB PBISS association.] ROTORUA, May This morning’s sitting of the Native Affairs Commission was occupied in the cross-examination of Joseph Austin Petre, Government Audit Inspector, who on Friday strongly criticised many aspects of the administration of £lie- land development schemes in the Rotorua district. Witness reiterated the opinion that it. was a wrong procedure to allow the foreman, who prepared the time sheets, also to pay out wages, or to allow the clerk who drew the wages cheque to make the payments to the men. Mr. Findlay pointed out that witness had already said that he thought tlio foremen were trustworthy, but. the chairman interjected that, it was quite obvious that the system exposed the men to temptation. Mr. Quilliam: I think that vyas proved by the Goldsmith case, with which we are all familiar. His Honor: The system cannot be justified. We have been told a different system is used for paying forestry employees, and 1 can see no reason why that system should not be used by the Native Department.. Witness agreed that recent increases in staff were improving the system and the issue of stores. He admitted that it might have been possible to obtain copies of the missing order forms from Wellington, but this would have meant a long delay and inconvenience. He was entitled to expect all relevant documents to be available in the Rotorua, office. Witness said he now agreed that the 31 sheep first reported as being lost from the draft, of 400 on the road between Rotorua and Maketu were in reality a. loss on a draft of 2582.

Mr. Findlay said the Auditor General now admitted that this was

Maketu scheme’s proportion of the total assessed loss on sheep from the East Coast. With regard to the allegation concerning the arrangement of contracts without authority, witness admitted that in some cases, Tai Mitchell, received direct instructions from the Native Minister, on these matters. He also agreed that some of the allowances made to scheme employees at Maketu had been personally authorised by the Minister. He admitted that he had been suspicious of Mitchell, but said he had not consulted him because he was never in the office when wanted. He agreed that the lack of staff placed the Registrar of the Wairaiki Land Board in a difficult position, and that unsuccessful efforts had been made by the registry to have the staff increased. Mr. Findlay contended that the intimation given to Parliament by the Native Minister, that he intended to carry out a general tidy up at Maketu was the authority for the erection of fencing which Petre claimed has been erected around private property. His Honor said this was not an authority, and could not be accepted as such by the Commission.

TO-DAY’S CROSS EXAMINATION ROTORUA, May 14. The Native Commission resumed its sitting this morning, when Mr. M. H. Hampson, representing H. Tai Mitchell, proceeded with the cross-exam-ination of Mr. Petre, Government Auditor, dealing principally with Maketu properties. Witness said he did not know that the Arawa Trust Board houses were put on the Maketu scheme, nor did he know that stock belonging to the scheme grazed on the Trust lands. He did not know before Mitchell’s statement in February of the arrangement for expenditure of the Trust Board’s funds on Maketu, and did not enquire from the Waiariki Board if such arrangement existed, but a detective made inquiries. Witness realised that he had made charges of corruption, and believed he was correct. Ho had consulted Inspector Frazer, of the Police Force, and was given to understand that the case could not be gone on with until the Native Minister had been consulted to see if he had authorised the arrangement. The files had' gone to Wellington for Sir A. Ngata’s perusal. When he (witness) returned he was told the Commissioner of Police could get no satisfaction from the Minister, so he felt constrained to put the matter before his chief. The Minister would’ not confirm or deny the arrangement. Mr Hampson intimated that he could produce documentary evidence of such authority, but witness declared he had no knowledge of such authority and had no option but to report the matter.

Replying to Mr Johnson’s question, Mr Hampson said his authority was the Native Minister. Mr Quillam: Is there a written record? Mr Hampson: There is a statement by the Minister that he intended to spend the money, and it was a common purpose of the parties to so spend the money. Questions from Mr Quillam regarding the accounts followed. Witness was understood to say that his allegations applied to 26 sections. Evidence was also given by John W. Scott, Audit Inspector, concerning the extravagances of this management.