PARLIAMENT

Manawatu Standard, Volume LIV, Issue 291, 7 November 1934, Page 9

PARLIAMENT

NATIVE AFFAIRS REPORT

LABOUR MOTION OF CENSUBE

An attack on the Government in connection willi the administration of Native Affairs was launched by the Opposition in the House of Representatives yesterday, Mr M. •! • Savage moving a motion of censure charging the. Government with failure to accept' its collective responsibility for the conditions disclosed in the Native Affairs Report. The debate had not concluded when the adjournment was taken, and will be resumed to-day.

Purposes Control Board and said it ha.d been alleged that money had been wastefuily spent, but the person who made the allegation forgot the fact that the money belonged to the Maori 2>eople to assist in keeping alive Maori arts and crafts, building meeting houses and assisting Maori children to attend colleges. Some of his and other chiefs benefited, but the Commission took care to mention only the children of the ex-Nativa Minister. He thought tli© ex-Miiiister was right in spending money on the Te Kai block, as the money belonged to the Maoris and not the Government of New Zealand. Nearly all the young men on the block went to the front a.nd 90 per cent, died. Their parents asked for no pensions, and that was a very good reason why money should be spent on the block. The amount spent for visits to various places was taken from the Maori Purposes Fund, and in his opinion the expenditure in that direction was correct. His people had previously been unable to make such visits and ascertain the wants of other tribes. Such visits were very valuable. For over 100 years the pakeha had failed to find the means for developing the Native race, but recently development schemes had been introduced. Portion of the money expended belonged to the Maoris a.nd portion was public money. The amount of public money spent was £200,000 and that was the only sum spent on the Maori people in 100 years. Large sums ot money had been wasted in other departments. Why bad Commissions not been set up to investigate them? He was sure money had been wasted by the Lands Department. The Maori members had decided ,to build meetinghouses and residences, but had had to pay for them themselves. Why was that principle not applied to the pakchas? The Press of the Dominion had said the Maori race was a, burden, but they forgot that the pakehas had confiscated large blocks of Native In spite of the report of the Commission, Mr Henare paid a tribute to those engaged in development schemes. To-day the reward they received was a smack in the eye. He asked members to consider the matter from a different angle. It had been said by the Opposition that the ex-Native Minister should have resigned as a duty, hut he failed to find any precedent for that. He thought the affairs of the Native Department would now be put to the country as a polltical issue. The Maori people were troubled over the resignation of the. Native Minister. Other Ministers had had their departments inquired into, but they had not been asked to resign. SUPPORT FOR EX-MINISTER.

Mr R. McKeen also referred to the lack of co-operation among departments and wasteful expenditure of public money on Native development schemes. He considered there would be a number of dismissals following the report of the Commission. Mr \V. J. Broadfoot thought the Commission had adopted the wrong viewpoint. He considered there should have been a Native member on it. The report of the Commission was merely an indictment of the Native Minister. . The crux of the -whole point was whether they would develop the Maori race or allow those 60,000 people to become a charge on hospital boards. He paid a tribute to Sir Apirana Ngata for what lie had done in his (the speaker’s district). He contended that the report deserved damning rather than praising, and he referred to a number of schemes mentioned in the report, which damned them, but which had greatly benefited large areas of land. He thought that if members knew more of the great Native problem, they -would realise the value of the attack Sir Apirana Ngata had made upon it. The Commission had made mountains out oi molehills and had given no credit to the man who had done colossal work lor ms race. Mr E. J. Howard said there should have been a representative of the Opposition on the Commission. He said Uie report bore out every charge laid by the Controller and Auditor-Gen-eral. He contended that there was just as much looseness in other departments as was disclosed in the Native. Department. The Unemployment department handled L4,OUU,I)uO and there was looseness there. The Native Affairs Department had to submit a voucher for every payment to tile Treasury, as other departments had.

Mr S. G. Smith: It had to be accounted lor.

Mr Howard: Yes, everything in the Native Department had to be accounted for, yet pilfering went on. 'there is room for a clean-up in the public accounts. Mr T. Te Tamo said the allegation that the ex-Native Minister had too much money to spend was correct, and lie had said so at Sir Apirana iVgnta’s own meeting-house. Ho (Mr Te Tomo) reported the matter to Sir Maui Domare m 1930 and lie agreed. Mr To Tomo went oil to refer to the money spent in his electorate during the epidemic and in bringing back the body of Sir Maui Pornare to New Zealand. Having made all the charges against Sir Apirana Ngata, the proper tiling now would be to put him back in lus seat, but lie understood tlie law had to be complied with. He knew there were other influences which would not permit that being done. He also regretted that reference was made only to Sir Apirana Ngala’s children. Sir Apirana liad done great work for his people and was one who had encouraged progress among the Maori people. Developmental work was commenced in his electorate in 1930, said Mr Te Tomo, but, owing to the sitting of the Commission, the work liad ceased. He asked that the House should make the request lo build dwelling-houses for Maoris effective and that they should not bo told to build bouses with their own money.

If the Finance Minister were unable to do ; that in the present year, sopieone else would fill his (Mr Te Tomo's) seat and he would not regret it, because he did not wish only to come to the House, sit down and walk out. He had put the request before the Minister and if it were not done his people could not blame him. Mr F. Jones said there was no doubt that much of the m.iladniiiiistration was due to the fault of the Gov-

eminent, and the resignation of one member of Cabinet would not put the matter right. The Finance Minister was equally responsible with the Native Minister in the purchase of land lor the settlement schemes, and he contended that the whole of the Government should have tendered their resignations and gone to the country. Mr R. Semple said the whole report should be handed over to the Police Department for investigation. The debate was adjourned on the motion of Sir Apirana Ngata and the House rose at 11.40 p.m.

THE MOTION.

OPPOSITION LEADER’S ATTACK. SHARING OR RESPONSIBILITY. Per Press Association. WELLINGTON, Nov. G. This afternoon the House considered the report of the Native Affairs Commission in conjunction with a motion moved by Mr M. J. Savage, as follows:

That this House expresses grave alarm at the irresponsible methods adopted in the administration of the Native Department, as disclosed in the report of the Native Affairs Commission, and is of the opinion that Cabinet failed in its duty by not immediately accepting its collective responsibility to safeguard the public funds and the welfare of the Native race when advised of the position by responsible oflicers of the Crown. Mr Savage said the thanks of the House and the country were due to the Controller and Auditor-General for his consistent and capable services. No one in the Dominion had given more loyal service for the common welfare. The Commission was also entitled to thanks for the full report it had provided for the benefit of those interested. It was the most damning indictment that had ever beeii made against the administration of public affairs by any Government since self-govern-ment was first established in New Zealand. If, under the present system of constitutional government, the Government of the day was not to be responsible for the administration ol all departments of State, there could be no security for the public welfare. If the Government could escape the odium which must be attached to bungling or maladministration of a department of State by making a scapegoat of one of its number who happened to be in immediate control, file present system of government was doomed. Whatever way one looked at that unfortunate state of affairs it must be admitted that there was a collective as well as an individual re sponsibilitv resting with the Ministers. It was clear from the report of the Commission that there was little or no co-operation between departments of State, the Opposition Leader continued. Evidence to that effect went back to March 10, 1932. On that date the Controller and Auditor-Gen-eral made a complaint to the Treasury that the Native Department did not co-operate with the Lands Department, nor with the Valuation Department, in the matter of making land purchases. The Government cither did not know of that or it failed to act -upon the information that was available to it through the various departments. Mr Savage quoted extensively from the Commission’s report dealing with the Te Kai dairy-farming scheme and the Tihiotenga station. He went on to say that the complaint regarding the Rotorua office was reported to the Minister of Finance, the Treasury and the Public Service Commissioner on March 14, 1932, or two and a-half years ago. He continued to quote dates ranging from March to November, 1932, on which complaints were made. Referring to the Native Department, he dealt with the purchase of McDowell’s lease and said the department asked for the return of the purchase money, but the vendor’s solicitors said that, as Cabinet had approved of the purchase, they could not agree. After quoting the Commission’s remarks, Mr Savage said the Native Department had made no serious attempt to compel the solicitors to honour the agreement to return the purchase money when the Auckland Land Board refused to recommend the transfer, with the result that the Lands Department was forced to accept the position and grant the transfer. All that was reported to the Prime Minister on November 24, 1932, and in view of that it was difficult to see how the Government could he freed from - blame. Mr Savage also dealt with other aspects of the report, referring particularly purchase of Iles’s property and Mrs Ilevell’s lease.

GROUNDS OF CRITICISM. The Leader of the Opposition summed up his remarks as follows: 1. Cabinet Ministers have a collective as well as an individual responsibility in the control of all State departments.

2. The ox-Minister, with every good intention to help the Maori popie, acted in an irresponsible manner in the oversight of the Maori development schemes, the purchase of lands and the expenditure of public funds. 3. There was little or no co-opera-tion between Cabinet Ministers in the administration of the various departments of State.

4. The report of the Commission provides abundant evidence of that lack of co operation. £5. The Native race has not received the treatment it is entitled to expect from the Government of the day in the matter of the development of Native lands and other means of livelihood.

“Whatever may be said,” he added, “one will be safe in saying that the people of the Dominion will be stirred by the revelations made by the Commission’s report and will take the first opportunity to see that justice is done to the Native race. “It is well,” lie continued, “that the Maori people should bo warned against those who will attempt to make thorn believe they are being attacked or that racial barriers aVe likely to stand between them and justice. That ca.n never be. Whatever mistakes have been made in their name or in the pakeha’s—and they have been many —the Maori and the pakeha must make up their minds to rise or fall together.” VIEWS OF MAORI MEMBER.

Mr Tail Henare said he was of the opinion that the report was not correct, because the members of the Commission were all Europeans. On previous Commissions on Native matters, nearly all had been Maori members. To his mind it was probably the conception ol the Native Minister that obstacles had been.placed in his way. According to his people’s custom, when the fight was over their opponents became friends and as brothers. He urged members of the House to be reconciled, and if the members of the House were broadminded they would say to Sir Apirana Ngata, “Return to your seat.” Mr Henare referred to the Maori