EX-MINISTER DEFENDED.

Manawatu Standard, Volume LIV, Issue 293, 8 November 1934, Page 9

EX-MINISTER DEFENDED.

WORK FOR THE RACE.

LABOUR PARTY ACCUSED.

Per Press Association. WELLINGTON, Nov. 7. In the House of Representatives this afternoon the debate on the Native Commission’s report and Mr M. J. Savage’s motion of censure was continued.

Mr A. E. Jull said he thought it unfair to attempt to pillory a man of the type of the ex-Native Minister as some La-bour members had done. Mr Jull considered the report was the worst compiled one he had seen; it had no continuity. The Maori Purposes Fund belonged to the Maoris and was built up by a percentage on the sale of Maori land many years ago. The House was prepared to overlook the waste and extravagance which took place in an orthodox way, but if it was not done that way there was trouble. Every year the Statute Book contained legislation validating actions far more serious than those referred. to in the Commission’s report. Sir Apirana Ngata should be given credit for bringing about co-operation in the Native race and obliterating tribal difficulties.

Mr F. Langstone denied that any member on that side of the House was attacking the ex-Native Minister. What he did complain of was the falsifying of documents and misappropriation of public moneys. He complained that the Native Minister had been generous to certain tribes, while others had received nothing or very little.

MINISTER AND HIS RESIGN A.

TION,

Sir Apirana Ngata said Mr Langstone’s speech illustrated the mischief that was likely to be done by the report. Two or three different things had been mixed up and if it had that effect on one who purported to understand Native questions, what effect would it have on people outside? Sir Apirana said he offered to resign a year ago, but was advised to see it through and he had spent 11 unhappy months. In his own interests it would have been better had he gone out then. He would have been freer and it would have been better had the inquiry taken the form of a prosecution, for it had developed into a vicious prosecution. It would have been better had definite charges been laid; he would k ave | known then what to fight. His colleagues had done their utmost to make the best of a difficult situation. He thanked all his colleagues in Cabinet tor their unfailing courtesy. They had played the part of gentlemen. Sir Apirana Ngata added that lie leI signed the day after the report was presented, because of the tenor of 't If the report was checked up twothirds of it was against the Native Minister. It was tinged right through and made it impossible for him to remain in Cabinet. He though the charge in Mr Savage’s motion was answered in the report of the Auditor-General. What was happening now was an inquest and not a reorganisation of the Maori Department, which had been taking place all the tune. The question for him to decide was whether lie could hold his head up amongst his fellowmen. The House had heard Mr lau Henare’s opinion, and if his fellow chiefs and lie could hold their hea s up among the Maori people, wliat about the pakeha ? Mr H. G. R. Mason: The same. Sir Apirana Ngata: Wait-a minute. In the Cabinet room the Minister ot Finance told the Prime Minister the Minister of Commerce and himself, tan Apirana proceeded, that the Minister was white. He could accept that as a compliment, although he was a Maori. Ho thanked Mr H. Atmoie for what he had said If lie could hold his head up among his own people and in Parliament as an honourable man, life would he worth living. There was much left to be done and he was going on till he dropped. A vicious effect ot the report was that people outside wore shaking their heads and wondering what kind of a man he was. He thanked Mr Jull for what he had said, and thought every member would agree with him tlint the report had no and shade in it and it failed entirely to grip several things. Mr Savage yesterday had said that somebody might make an effort to stir up trouble in the Maori race following that report, but the Prime Minister was assured by the Maori members that they would take every opportunity to prevent a misunderstanding taking place. Parliament was unanimous that it had goodwill towards the Maori race and wished to do its best for them, and Sir Apirana thanked the House for that. He would tell the Maori people about that, as there was some misunderstanding. Every penny that went eastward, according to the Commission, was bad, Sir Apirana continued. Nothing was said about money that went elsewhere. The tribe of which he was a member deserved the thanks of the Maori race, for it was at the head of the progress that had been made.

PERSONAL REFERENCES. Dealing with personal matters in the report, Sir Apirana Ngata referred to vouchers anu said the vouchers complained of were held till the Commission sat at Gisborne. That was not fair; they should have been submitted to the Minister or his secretary for an explanation, but it was too good a publicity matter. Counsel for the defence was never given a chance of examining C. Woodford, a taxi proprietor at Rotorua, and his story, and that was a story that was sticking in the gizzards of a number of members. Reference had been made to the Native Minister being the titular head of other boards, but in fairness to the Native Minister it should be said that the Minister was not an owner and mortgages were arranged before he became Native Minister. He also asked how many members had not done their best to help the man on the land. There was a degree of difference, hut credit should he given to the Native Minister for doing the same for his people. Coming to the assistance given to members of his family, Sir Apirana said he must go back to 1924-28, when he was a private member of the House and when assistance was given to Maori students, including his children. The report referred to the period 1929 to 1934, when_ the same tiling continued. The children were

coming on, had passed the proficiency examination and were knocking at the doors of the university. They received the same assistance as other Maori boys and girls. Dealing with his son, the ex-Minister said that the boy received a scholarship at Canterbury College. He was taken away to teach at Te Ante College, but the staff had to be reduced. The matter was taken up by the Maori Purposes Board, and he held that the board was justified in retaining the services of a specialist at Te Ante College, even if he was the son of the Native Minister.

Referring to the lies purchase and other transactions, he said it might be inferred that the Minister had received some cut.

Mr Langstone: Nobody thinks that.

Sir Apirana said he was, pleased to hear it, as that was one of the conclusions which had arisen. He proceeded to justify his dealings with the Waiapu Company and dairy companies, and said that had the word “company” not been used probably nothing would have been said, hut people obtained a wrong idea. Referring to the purchase of bulls for North Auckland, Sir Apirana said suitable hulls could not be secured in the district and had to be purchased in the Waikato. No one could cavil at the price paid for the bulls when compared with the prices ruling for cattle in the Waikato at the time. The question was asked, “What had the Native Minister got out of .it?” But although all the books had been searched, it could not be shown that the Minister had made a thing. If anything happened over the lies purchase, three people were fooled—the president of the board (Judge Holland) first, the Under-Secretary of the Native Department second, and the Native Minister third. In the light of later events the purchase could not bo defended.

Sir Apirana Ngata then came to the allegations that preference was given to the East Coast Maoris. He said they were the most deserving people and that the travelling to a football match mentioned in the report was an assemblage of Maoris to do honour to the British football team and not to attend the football match, as the Commission said. It was a matter of honour that the Maori people should give the visitors a suitable reception. He defended the payments for visits and said the visit of Mr Tati Henare’s people to the Bay of Pjenty had led to the removal of ranklings that had existed for 100 years. Leading men in one district had to see conditions in other districts. While that was being done, farmers from Southland were visiting Waikato and other exchanges were being made. In his opinion the Maori Purposes Fund was a fund that should be used to assist in breaking down tribal differences. The report referred to earthquake relief to East Coast Maoris, but much of it went to Hawke’s Bay Maoris, that district being south of what was known as the East Coast. Nothing in the report was said of spending £IOOO in connection with the epidemic of dysentery in the Western Maori district. Why?

GRANTS FOR RELIEF. Sir Apirana also dealt with the references to unemployment grants. The Commission said it could not give a definite finding until it knew what grants were given to other districts. He had refused to apply No. 5 scheme to the Maoris, as he regarded it as a most degrading scheme and preferred to grant relief through contracts on development lands. The Gisborne people received very little relief. He said the report was a libel on one of the most deserving tribes in the Dominion.

Coming to the implication that three carved meeting-houses on the East Coast were subsidised to an extent of over £4OOO from the Maori Purposes Board, Sir Apirana said that from 1930 the people of the East Coast had subscribed over £BOOO for the houses and had paid over £2200 to the Maori Purposes Board; so in paying out that amount the board was giving only what the people had paid. The Maori race believed in helping themselves; they did not believe in sponging on the Government. Shortly before he became Native Minister the Maori Purposes Board gave £I2OO towards building a carved meeting-house at Ngaruawahia and his tribe gave £I9OO, but nothing was said in the report about the Ngaruawahia house because it was not on the East Coast. He still believed lie could do much to assist the Maori people, but he would not allow the pakeha to throw mud at his tribe. Nearly every leading Maori from all over the Dominion was educated at Te Aute College; yet, as it was in his electorate, stones were thrown at it because they might hit the Native Minister and his tribe. The charge of territorial bias was disposed of by persons from all parts who attended Te Aute. As to the future, Sir Apirana said the whole scheme was for the Maori people. The day of landlordism was passed, but it had to be replaced by something better. If the Maori were divorced from the land he would become a slave, wandering about and mating with Chinese and Hindus, which was most undesirable. A permanent solution was wanted. Parliament had denied the use of State funds; until 1929 'Parliament, particularly the Treasury, had a bogey of Maori wastefulness. Only after 89 years was the Maori lent a little money. The Moari people demanded State money to establish residences. The money would be paid back only in the “Waikato, where all the land was taken away. He did not think the House need worry about the future of the Maori and the pakeha races. There always would be differences, but compromises could be effected. The Maori had only one request to make. Let New Zealand have a broadminded outlook on Native matters and sympathetic treatment at points of difference, and then there would he no trouble in the future relations of the two peoples, the ex-Minis-ter concluded.

Sir Apirana was heartily applauded as he resumed his seat. VIEWS OF OTHER MEMBERS. Mr W. E. Barnard criticised the Prime Minister,, for not having participated in the debate. He quoted authorities in support of his contention that the whole Cabinet was responsible for the actions of any one Minister. The Government had no right to make the Native Minister

“walk the plank” and then proceed as if nothing had happened. Mr S. 6. Smith said the Native Minister could not be judged on the mistakes of his officers, which were made under the peculiar circumstances of the last two or three years; he must be judged on his whole works. At the present time they were too close to the picture; in later years the names of Ngata, Buck, and Pomare would go down as those who had done excellent work for the Native race.

Mr H. T. Armstrong said he believed in equality for the Maori and pakeha races and the fact that the Native Minister was a Maori was no reason why charges should not be brought against him. He complimented Sir Apirana Ngata on what he had done for the Native race, but he wondered why better land was not selected for the development schemes. CABINET DEFENDED.

Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates said he took no objection to the tone of Mr Savage’s amendment. It was an opportunity of which he took advantage' and he (the Minister) took no exception to the part in which the Leader of the Opposition said Cabinet was responsible for the acts of the Native Minister. He thought the country would be interested to know what steps the Government took in recent years. He said the Government took steps immediately on each occasion a complaint was made to the Government. Mr P. Fraser: That is what we question. Mr Coates said the Government was not prepared to take even the Audi-tor-General’s report, and the Commis,sion was set up. Apart from all feelings he had for the Native race and the Native Minister, he was not making excuses, but said the Government could only be blamed when it was proved that the Government had not acted when complaints were received. The Auditor-General could not be linked up with the strictures contained in the Commission’s report. _ He denied there was any corruption in the Public Service, as had been suggested. He claimed that the Public Service would oppose any change from the present method of control. He doubted if there was any more expeditious action by the Government. When reports were first received regarding Native affairs, a large number of appropriations were removed. Following the report of the Economy Commission, which was set up in 1932, several Native Acts were amended and in 1933 the Native Land Settlement Board was appointed. Mr Coates admitted that Cabinet was equally responsible with the Native Minister, but said there was a case to be made out regarding the Gov* ernment’s actions. He proceeded to read a statement giving in detail the actions of the Government. Comment had been made that the Prime Minister had not spoken, but he contended that the proper procedure had been followed after the complaints had been made. Sir Apirana Ngata had replied that that was according to both the pakeha and the Maori custom. It was for the Opposition to prove where the ex-Native Minister had made any personal gain. Mr Parry: That is not fair. I expected something better from you than that. Mr Coates said the definite responsibility that rested on the Opposition was to prove negligence on the part of the Government.

Mr J. A. Leo said he hoped the day would never come when, because a. man made a mistake, he lost his manhood. Complaints regarding Native affairs were raised by members of the House and by newspapers before 1932, in which year the Auditor-General became interested. He contended that negligence on the part of the Government had been proved. He quoted extracts from a report in support of his contention that the Government had not acted when complaints were made to it. Mr W. A. Bodkin paid a tribute to Sir Apirana Ngata, who would, be said, m later years be eulogised for the work he had done for his people. He contended that no Minister had obtained the value for money expended on development schemes that Sir Apirana Ngata had. Mr Bodkin alleged that the Opposition’s attack on the exNativo Minister was made for party purposes. The debate was adjourned and the House rose at 11.50.