Native Affairs Debate Concluded

Manawatu Times, Volume 59, Issue 262, 9 November 1934, Page 7

Native Affairs Debate Concluded

Labour’s-No-confidence Motion Rejected

Mr Forbes Bays Legislative Changes

Will Be Made

Per Press Association.

WELLINGTON, Last Night

officials was disclosed, that was a matter for the Auditor-General' and not the Government. He thought that on all previous occasions the AuditorGeneral had done his duty in that respect. The Auditor-General would also take any desirable steps regarding the recovery of money. All the ncces sary machinery was provided and the Minister did not come into it. Every opportunity for co-ordination of departments was provided. What did Mr AleKccn mean by his statement that, if the matter were investigated, some Ministers of the Crown would not come too well out of it?

The debate on the Native Commission’s report and Mr. Ravage’s motion was resumed in the House of Representatives this afternoon.

Mr. H. G. R. Mason said that tho references to the good work of' the Native Minister did not take up as much space as tho reference to complaints. Mr. Mason considered the oiiice arrangements were not developed as the field staff was developed, and that the office arrangements broke down. The trouble w T as largely due to inheriting insufficient office organisation. The Minister’s complaint that the report appeared to be unfair to him was justified. He thought the Minister .was, to a certain extent, justified in resisting red tape in his department. The report excused the Treasury in some measure because it was busy with other matters, but that, Mr. Mason claimed, was the fault of the economy system. If tho Troasury had not sufficient staff to attend to all its duly, it was false economy.

Mr Forbes said that, if the member had any charge he should supply information, so that it could bo followed

up. Mr McKccn: 1 had certain parlieu

Mr Forbes said that, if Mr Mclvccn had particulars, he would bo pleased to have them, as the Government was not afraid to take any matter up and would have any charge fully invesigated. Mr McKccn should either make a charge or withdraw the remark.

Mr. C. 11. Cliukard complimented Sir Apirana Ngata on the success of the development schemes and said that greater value had resulted than the money extended. Sir Apirana might have shown more zeal than was necessary, but when he was given tho opportunity to assist his people, ho grasped it with both hands. Mr. W. E. Parry said there appeared to be a conflict in the Government Party. Members of the United Party defended the ex-Native Minister, but the Minister for Finance and other members of tho Reform Party turned him down. Throughout the Dominion there was practically a united censure of the Government regarding the Native Department. Was the Prime Minister going to stand by his former colleague or by the report? He contended that the charge of negligence against the Government had been proved. The correct thing for the Government to do was to resign with tho cx-Native Minister and go to the country.

Mr Forbes continued that Mr Howard had referred to unemployment, funds and had said there was no more cheek on it than the Native Affairs Department. Mr Forbes said ho knew the administration of unemployment was a fair target, but he did not think the impression should be created that the administration was not carried out as honestly as other departments. Mr Howard: I, didn’t say there was any dishonesty.

Mr Forbes said the suggestion was that, if there was no check, money would be got away with. It was not fair to suggest that men could not be trusted. He contended that the Government could not have done more than it had done when attention was drawn to certain matters. Would Act, Similarly. He thought Sir Apirana had done a manly thing. Sir Apirana said he did not agree with the report and if he (Mr Forbes) faced a similar position he would act as Sir Apirana had done. He thought Sir Apirana showed a very fine spirit, and a spirit that was appreciated. His offer of co-operation was very generous. Sir Apirana had a difficult task and had- given the Government great assistance. He was still the leader of the native people and the Government was thankful for his co-operation, and he hoped Sir Apirana would still be able to continue his assistance in the settlement, policy. Without his'assistance that scheme was unable to be carried on. The alternative was unemployment and ho would endeavour to continue settlement as against work under unemployment schemes. Losses might be made, as were made in European settlements, but the losses would be very small in consideration of the value of settling the native problem. Mr P. Fraser attacked the administration of the Native Department and deprecated the attempts that had been made to set out comments in the report ns trivialities. He referred to the impartiality of Mr Justice Smith and other members of the Commission. He held that the report could be criticised, but he considered it had not been effectively criticised by Government members. !e had been said that Sii Apirana was not praised for the work ho had done, but the report was not. tinged as had been stated. It was not for the Commission to go into past achievements of the Minister; its order of reference limited it to certain settlements schemes. It was not the Minister who was on trial, but the administration of which* he was the head. The Commission had shown a readiness lo give credit where credit was due and a reluctance to condemn personally. He had never seen a betterbalanced report.

Mr. Forbos Enters Debate.

Rt. Hon. G. W. Forbes asked what was the real feeling of tho Labour Party. Dealing with Mr. Savage's motion, he thought it was dealt with by tho Minister of Finance. It was absurd to suggest that the whole of Cabinet should resign because the member in charge of a- department should do something in his own department. He quoted authorities in suport of his contention that a Minister must accept the whole of the responsibility'for what happened in his department. If it was a Cabinet matter, Cabinet as a whole would have to accept tho responsibility.

Tlie Economy Commission in 1932 recommended that the affairs of the Native Department should be inquired into. He did not know any members of a Commission who wero villified as members of that Commission were. The Government did the things the Economy Commission suggested, legislation being brought down on September 9, 1932. The object of the Native Land Settlement Board was to advise the Native Minister in regard to its particular subject. Sir Apirana Ngata said the board had been very helpful to him. The Auditor-General had very great powers indeed, and when it was said there was corruption in the Public Service it was a baseless charge and not fair to the Public Service or to the House. There was no possibility of public funds being misused when the Auditor-General had the powers he had. There were, of co.ursc, cases of embezzlement that could not be avoided, but the Public Service in Now Zealand was as honest as any Public Service in the world. In November, 1933, the department was completely reorganised and in December they had the report of the Auditor-General, which, it was felt, should be investigated, and the Public

Misappropriation Claimed. After the tea adjournment MiEraser continued his speech. He referred lo a number of items in the report which, he claimed, showed misappropriation of public moneys. He charged Cabinet with taking no action to prevent speculation and misappropriation of public moneys. They were not so much concerned with individual action as with the administration of a system that nearly brought about the breakdown of all the native settlement schemes, involving the large amount of public money that had been spent on them. He, too, quoted authorities in support of his contention that the whole of Cabinet was responsible for the expenditure of the moneys. He said that, after passing the legislation recommended by tlio Economy Commission, the Government went to sleep as far as the Native Department was concerned.

Accounts Committee recommended that a Jloyal Commission should be set up. The Nativo Purposes Board was set up and a Commission was appointed. Had the Government not done that the Government could have been held responsible. On every occasion that a complaint was made by the Auditor-General, the Government backed him up. Changes Not Urgent.

The Government accepted' the Commission’s report and would put into operation the legislative changes recommended by it. The Native Department would then be on all fours with other Government departments. There was nothing urgent; otherwise the matter would be dealt with during the present session. Sir Apirana Ngata had tendered his resignation when the Auditor-General’s report was received, but he (Mr Forbes) had urged him not to resign until the matter was investigated. When the report was brought down Sir Apirana said he did not wish to continue in office, as he felt ho could not carry on his work with the same confidence as in the past. He thought a good deal could, be said ou the Native Minister’s side, but he accepted the Commission’s report. He had expected the Opposition’s motion of no-coniidence; that was its job, but he thought that asking the Government to accept the whole of the responsibility was asking a great deal. If a case for the prosecution of any

Mr Eraser claimed that Cabinet had not exercised the control it should have exercised, and asked, if Sir Apirana Ngata still retained the confidence of the Prime Minister, why was his resignation accepted? Why not re-admit him to Cabinet? But the Government knew that was impossible. The Opposition, to a man, was as anxious to assist the Maoris as the Government was. He hoped that in future the work would go on more efficiently and more effectively for the benefit of the Maori people. The report contained evidence of speculation, misappropriation, forgery and fraud. The Government was conversant with what had been going on and had failed to take

action. He hoped the House would take a serious view of the matter.

Mr R. A. Wright contended that a Maori should never have been put, in charge ojl his own people; it was unfair to himself, to his people, and to the pakeha. The Prime Minister had introduced a measure giving the exNative Minister 100 per cent. more power than the other Ministers, and, of course, he used it. Parliament passed the measure and was, therefore, responsible.

Mr. J. O’Brien said ' that action should be taken against every person mentioned in tho report as having committed fraud, carried on graft, misappropriated money, stolen or conspired to defraud. There was abundant evidence to take action against persons who had exploited the Maori race and the fund that had been gathered together for the benefit of tho Maori people. No Shelving of Responsibility.

Mr. J. A. Nash claimed that Cabinet had not in any way attempted to shelve its responsibility. The psychology ot the native people had to be considered and it was different from that of the pakeha. The whole trend of the discussion from the Opposition had been that they wanted to retain the friendship of the native people, but had they gone the right way about it? Several members of the Opposition had demanded the resignation of the Native Minister and the Maori never forgot. Mr. Savage, in reply, reiterated that the matter was a collective one on the part of the Ministry. The Government must answer the indictment contained in the report. If anyone had been let down, it was Sir Apirana Ngata and he had been let down by his Cabinet colleagues and not by the Opposition.

Mr. Coates: That is the most unfair statement that has ever been maae in this House.

Mr. Savage continued that Cabinet had the responsibility and the time would come when they would have to answer for it, and when they would be convicted of maladministration and neglect in connection with the Native Department. The Opposition had been asked to believe, mainly by United members, that the Commission had blundered, but if that was so, Sir Apirano Ngata should still be in the Ministry. He assured Sir Apirana he could hold up his head among men; he had the same right as his Cabinet colleagues. He had blundered in his administration, but the responsibility was a collective one. Sir Apirana had no need to hang his head down because ho bad blundered. No one on the Opposition said he had benefited from his administration. Even though he had made blunders, he had attempted to do other things, which was more than could be said about some of his Cabinet colleagues. He claimed that Cabinet had fallen in the estimation of the people. Cabinet should stand up to its blunders like men and not try to sacrifice one of their number. It was not a question of Cabinet being responsible for every embezzlement that occurred in Government departments; it was a question of maladministration. Members of tho House had to carry the responsibility

when voting for or against the. sentiments expressed in the report. Division Taken. After three days of debate a division was taken at 11.20 and resulted in the motion being lost by 36 votes to 22. Mr. (Savage’s motion was:— - That the 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 opiuion that Cabinet failed in its duty by not immediately accepting its collective responsibility to safeguard tho public funds and the welfare of the native race when advised of the position by responsible officers of the Crown. The voting was as follows: Tor the Motion; Armstrong McCombs Barnard McKcen Carr Mason Chapman W. Nash Coleman 0 'Brieu Eraser Parry Howard Richards Jones (Savage Jordan Schramm Langstone Semple Lee Wilkinson Against the Motion: Anseil Holland Bilchener Ilolyoakc Bodkin Jull Broadfoot Eye Burnett McLeod Campbell Macmillan Cliukard Macl’herson Coates J. N. Massey Cobbe W, W. Massey Connolly Murdoch Dickie J- A. Nash Field Poison Forbes Reid Hamilton Smith Hargest Stuart Harris Te Tomo Healy Veitch Henare . Young