CENSURE MOTION

Northern Advocate, 7 November 1934, Page 3

CENSURE MOTION

VIEWS OF MEMBERS EX-MINISTER PRAISED. NATIVES WANT JUSTICE. [Per Press Association.—Copyright.! WELLINGTON, This Day. The debate on the Native Affaii’s Commission’s report and on Mr Savage’s censure motion lasted all day in the House of Representatives yesterday. Mr R. McKeen (Labour—Wellington South) considered there would be a number of dismissals following the report of the commission. Mr W. J. Broadfoot (Government— Waitomo) - thought the commission had adopted the wrong viewpoint. There should have been a Native member on it. The report was merely an indictment of the Native Minister, but the crux of the whole point was whether they woifid develop the Maori race or allow those 60,000 people to become a charge on- the hospital boards. He paid a tribute to Sir Apirana Ngata for what he had done in the Waitomo electorate. If members knew more of the great Native problem, they, would realise the value of the attack Sir Apirana had made on it. The committee had made mountains out of molehills and had given no credit to the man who had done colossal work for his race.

Mr E. J. Howard (Labour —Christchurch South) said the report bore out every charge made by the Controller and Auditor-General. .He contended there was just as much looseness in other departments as was disclosed m the Native Department. Mr F. Jones, (Labour—Dunedin South) said the Minister of Finance was equally responsible with the Native' Minister in the purchase of land for settlement schemes. He contended the whole Government should have tendered its resignation. The Hon. A. D. McLeod (Government—Wairarapa) said it was inevitable that development lands in the Auckland district should be written down 10/- in the £, but the development was worth while, even if it meant a loss, as there was a national responsibility for the Maori people. Mr R. Semple (Labour—Wellington East) said the whole report should have been handed over to the Police; ’Department for investigation. Mr H. Atmore (Independent—Nelson) said that Sir Apirana had the learning of a pakeha, but the generosity of . the Maori race, and what appeared big irregularities to the pakeha mind were .as nothing to the Maori mind. He thought the House should take a national outlook and give Sir Apirana the credit for the work he had done. Mr E. T. Tirikatene (Independent— Southern Maori) referred to the large areas of Maori land taken by the pakeha, ,He said that under the Treaty of Waitangi they purchased 20,000,000 acres for a paltry £2OOO. The Natives were not asking for sympathy, but justice. He spoke of the difficulties under which Natives were working, and said a fund should be established to assist them. The debate was adjourned on the motion of Sir Apirana Ngata. A POLITICAL ISSUE AT NEXT ELECTION. ; MR TAU HENARE’S FEARS. SIR A. NGATA DEFENDED. SOME PERTINENT QUESTIONS. [From Our Parliamentary Special.) : , WELLINGTON, This Day. Fpars that Native Affairs, questions would, for the first time, be made a political issue at a general election in New Zealand were expressed yesterday by Mr Tau Henare (Northern Maori), who stoutly defended the administra- i tion of Sir Apirana Ngata, and claimed that the sums expended on Maori land development were no more than the amounts owed to the race by the Pakeha.

Speaking through an interpreter, Mr Henare said that the report of the Native Affairs Commission was not correct, because all the members of the commission were Europeans, and not Maoris. On nearly all the commissions which in the past had inquired into Native matters there had been a representative of the Maori race. He could not understand why the precedent in the present instance had been departed from. According to the standards of his people, the members of the House should be broadminded enough to say to Sir Apirana: ‘'Return to your seat in the Cabinet.” In the view of his people those who opposed such a declaration were of a common class.

Charges had been made that moneys from the Native Purposes Fund had been washed, but those making the allegations forgot-.that the money belonged to the Maori people. It had been made available to assist the preservation of arts and crafts, the erecttion of whare runanga on the different marae, and to assist students who were suitable to attend college, “Some of my children benefited from this fund, and also the children of others throughout the Dominion,, but the commission took special care to mention only the children of the former Native Minister,” said Mr Henare, “We had one of our boys working in the Health Department, but that department would not assist him, and we had to assist him from this fund.” Mr Henare said he had not much to say regarding the report of the commission, because he could not see anything in it. Concerning one property, lie considered the Minister had acted correctly in approving a grant, because the money expended belonged to the Maoris and not to the Pakeha. All the young men in that particular area had volunteered for active service, and about 90 per cent, died at the front. Moreover, hone of the bereaved parents had applied to the Government for pensions. He thought that was a good reason why the Maori Land Board money should have boon spent in that locality. The commission’s report was adverse to the visits made from one place to another, the expenditure being provided out of the Native Purposes Fund. Expenditure in that direction, in his opinion, was proper. Previously, his people had not been able to undertake those visits, and had been left isolated, but since the interchange of meetings the people had been able to know pre-

cisely what was wanted by the tribes throughout New Zealand. A great deal of benefit had resulted.

Stoutly defending the Ngata land development schemes, Mr Henare declared that for over 100 years the Pakeha had failed to discover means of assisting the progress of or advancing the Native race. For the schemes, 'some of the money provided was J Pakeha and some Maori. The amount expended to date was £200,000. and that represented the total sum spent by the public on the Maoris for 100 years. There had been wastages in other departments and he wanted to know why commissions had not inquired into them. For instance, to his view, a good deal of money had been wasted in the Lands Department. The press had alleged that the Natives were a burden on the Dominion, but the Pakehas, with their short memories forgot that they owed the Maoris money for the land which they had confiscated. A commission had recommended that £350,000 be paid to the Maori for the purchase of the South Island. That payment had never been j made. Why did not the press mention facts such as that? Mr Henare’s Retort. Notwithstanding the conclusions of the commission, Mr Henare said he wished to acknowledge the efforts of the Maori people and others in connection with the development schemes. , Today the only reward they received was a smack in the eye. “I am asking members to consider this question from a different angle,” Mr Henare added. “It was recently suggested by a member of the Opposition that the Native Minister should resign as a duty. I have endeavoured to ascertain what he meant by that. I have been here for 21 years, and have searched without success for a precedent for that statement. Premiers of previous; Administrations have stated it to be the unwritten law that matters in connection with Native affairs should not be used for political purposes, or made a political issue at a general election. I am afraid that this report and matters in connection with Native affairs will now be put to. the country as political issues.” ,

Mr Henare said the Leader of the Opposition had tendered the advice that it would be well for Maori members in the House not to say anything. “I thought he meant,” the member explained, “that we should keep our heads in the trenches, and that »if we showed them we would be shot. If that be his meaning, ! am asking him to temper it down.” Mr W. E. Parry (Labour—Auckland Central): “He never said it.”

.Mr Henare: “The press reports him as having said so.” Continuing his remarks, Mr Henare said: “Today I stand before you as a man with a troubled mind, because my people throughout the Dominion are troubled in spirit owing to the resignation of the ex-Native Minister. There are members in the House whose departments were inquired into by commissions, but members of the Opposition did not ask those Ministers to resign or- say it was their duty to resign,” Mr H. T. Armstrong (Labour--Christchurch East): “We are asking them every day.”

STOUT DEFENDER *

EX-MINISTER CRUCIFIED. EXPERIENCE OF YEARS. REPORTS ATTACKED. REMARKS OF MR BROADFOOT. [From Our Parliamentary Special .l WELLINGTON, This Day. A strong defender of the former Native Minister was found In Mr W. J. Broadfoot (Government, Waitomo), who declared during the debate that, having lived forty years with the Native land problem, he gave Sir Apirana Ngata the highest credit for what he had done in his tei’ritory. Sir Apirana had overcome a mountain of inertia. Mr Broadfoot attacked the commission’s report in several aspects, suggesting that its opinion regaining some of the schemes in his district was incorrect. There was an instance where a success was made of 3000 acres of Native land which Sir Apirana developed, and it ceased to be a menace to the surrounding farmers through noxious weeds. The commission, itx his opinion, had lumped its charges together in an unfair way. It mentioned that reports on the complaints of the Auditor-General had not been proved. These, it said, included a criminal charge where the verdict was not guilty. He would contrast the commission’s handling of that phase with that of another judiciary. It was a case in the Supreme Court in Gisborne, in which E. Biddle and Rangi Royal were chax’ged with falsification of a voucher. After hearing the case, Mr Justice Blair directed the jury to return a verdict of not guilty. But the commission made no meixtion of this, or of the jury’s rider, which was: “The jury feel that the irregularities that occurred with reference to a voucher for £22 could have been satisfactorily straightened out by the Audit Department, and the department in charge of the work being done on this particular Native development work, without Royal and Biddle being put to the worry and expense of being brought into the coux’t.” Mr Bx*oadfoot concluded by claiming that in 190 cases of the Royal Commission’s report, the jury had been addressed by men of partial judgment. They had made mountains out of defects, and given no ci’edit for the amazing and colossal work done by the Native Minister.”

Mr Semple: “You are romancing.” Mr Broadfoot retorted that ho was not so accustomed to romancing as the intcrjoctor. He realised that Sir Apirana Ngata could have become one of the ablest barristers in New Zealand and earned £1)000 a year, but he gave his life to his people, and for that he was being crucified. Mr 11. T. Armstrong (Labour, Chx-isl-chui’ch East): “Your Party is crucifying him."

Another member: “You sacked him.” Mr Boardfoot: "The man who has to

put up with such criticism has a sori’y reward. We are too near the picture, but history will write well of Ixim.”

Mr E. J. Howard (Labour, Christchurch South), the next Opposition speaker, continued the criticism of the commission by asking who had appointed it. The Opposition were not consulted, but the commission consisted of four respectable citizens, independent of any politician, and nobody could read their report without feeling that there was something rotten in the State of Denmark.