EXTRAVAGANCE CHARGE.

Manawatu Standard, Volume LIII, Issue 5, 3 December 1932, Page 6

EXTRAVAGANCE CHARGE.

MINISTER’S RESENTMENT. NATIVE LANDS DEPARTMENT. (By Telegraph.—Special to Standard.) WELLINGTON, Dec. 2. . Declaring that ho was very sensitive about the charge of extravagance levelled against tire Native Land Department, Hon. Sir Apirana Ngata told the House of Representatives that he resented it and denied its accuracy. He was moving the committal of the Native Lands Amendment Bill, which will facilitate the reorganisation of the department and its associated functions. Sir Apirana said ho had been trying to get at the cause of the charge that there had been extravagance in the administration of his department and the management of Native land settlement and its widespread activities in the development of _ Native land. One thing was certain —that there had been officers of the State in the past ,and perhaps in the present, who regarded the Native Department as a sort of inferior department, which lie resented very much. This prejudice might be bound up with the big problem of the two races being associated together in the same country'. > He had been told that Maori Land Boards should be abolished because they were either not doing their job or not properly looking after the money, or perhaps something worse. He had gone to a great deal of trouble to find if these statements were justified and he had come to the conclusion that in the administration of monies no department of State had a better record.

Up till March 31 last the Maori Land Boards had found it necessary to sell up seven mortgagors. One was a Maori who owed £75. His asset realised £IOO, but there were six pakehas who owed £12,700, and the boards took over half the properties and sold the rest, making a loss of £6300. It had been suggested that the department had grown out of all proportion. He was sensitive about this criticism and resented it because it was not correct.

A member: It is not in the Commission’s report. The Minister:- No, but it has been stated in the newspapers. If people liked to call the Minister a “rubber stamp’’ they could do it, continued Sir Apirana. They could either have a Minister or a board, and the people would say, “Why does not the Minister do his work.” The National Expenditure Commission had said that the Native Minister possessed despotic powers. He had looked into this phase and could not find that his powers were more despotic than tho.se of other Ministers. Mr M. J. Savage who was acting as Leader of the Opposition during the absence of Mr H. E. Holland, assured the Native Minister that the thanks of the House were due to him. He would require evidence better than that of the Royal Commission to satisfy him that Sir Apirana had not been doing his duty. The Minister had been termed a “rubber stamp” in the charge of an important - department and to call his department a “one-man show',” unlike that of other Ministers, was not fair. Apparently the Commission simply acted on reports, probably biassed, which had been handed to it and had heard certain people who were probably also biassed; but that did not help anyone. There was a good deal of overlapping in the Native Department, but he had yet to learn tjiat the Native Minister hajd done any worse than other Ministers.