MAORI MEMBER’S VIEWS

Northern Advocate, 7 November 1934, Page 3

MAORI MEMBER’S VIEWS

j THE SCRIPTURES QUOTED i! ' | PRAISE FOR SIR APIRANA i ’ j [From Our Parliamentary Special J ' I WELLINGTON. This Day. ; ! Remarkably few references to the 1 ; finding of the Native Affairs Commis- ’ ; sion and many observations on a wide i range of other subjects characterised j the contribution of Mr. Taite To Tomo i (Western Maori) to the debate. Adj dressing the House through an interj preter, in his customary forceful style, i Mr. Te Tomo started by indicating that iif he were to give full vent to his feelings on the report he would be still speaking in the early hours of the morning. Leaving the report temporarily, he suggested that grants made by the House should be given to workers. He i was prepared to give his salary to j working people who were in distress, because he realised they did not enjoy j the same luxuries as ,he did at j j Bellamy’s, but he made it clear he was not referring to the amount paid him now, but in future. With a brief excursion into the merits of the Maori voting system, Mr. Te Tomo returned to the commission, which, he explained, had omitted to mention the benefits his electorate | had received. He then voiced the | sentiment that, according to the Maori j way of regarding the matter, Sir j Apirana Ngata should be asked to resume his seat in the Cabinet. “I j understand the position though,” he | added. “We must comply with the j law, as St. Paul, in the second chapter j to the Romans, said: ‘Before the law 1 came we lived. Since the law has ! come we must comply with it.’ I know ’ the Prime Minister is not able to do > what I suggest, because there are other ! influences at work that will prevent j him from doing it.” By way of illustrating the Maori outlook, he recalled that during the I United regime Sir Apirana Ngata had,! in spite of exceptions taken by mem- j bers of his party, invited Mr. Coates,! then Leader of the Opposition, to un- j veil a memorial to a Maori chief and | open a meeting house. Mr, Te Tomo | said he had accompanied Sir Apirana I round the development schemes and had seen the great work he had done. He had done his best for his people, and would still dq, his best. The biggest stumbling-block to land de- j; velopment schemes was the Ratana | ■ movement, which had discouraged the { ;

scheme. “I know some people would like to see the Minister of Finance and myself out of the House so that they could get hold of the power,” added Mr. Te Tomo, “but I have advised my contemporaries to hold fast to the trunk of the tree and not cling to stray vines.” Mr. Te Tomo concluded with an appeal to the Minister of Finance to give effect to the application of the Maori people for dwelling houses, and not compel them to build them with their own money. The people in the Waikato were the worst off. From that centre he had letters frantically appealing for assistance in that direction, “If Mr. Coates is unable to give effect to these application,” Mr. Te Tomo declared, “then someone else next year will be in my seat in the House.”

LABOUR LEADER CRITICAL FIVE SUBMISSIONS IRRESPONSIBLE METHODS “A DAMNING INDICTMENT” (From Our Parliamentary Special .] WELLINGTON, This Day. Five main submissions in support of his highly critical want of confidence motion were made by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. M. J. Savage, who invited the House to express its “grave alarm at the irresponsible methods adopted in the administx’ation of the Native Department and its opinion that Cabinet failed in its duty by not immediately accepting its collective responsibility to safeguard public funds and the welfare of the Native race when advised of the position 6y' responsible officers of the Crown.” Mr. Savage’s conclusions were:— (1) Cabinet Ministers have a collective as well as an individual responsibility in the control of all State departments. (2) The ex-Minister, with very good intentions to help the Maori people, acted in an irresponsible manner in his oversight of Maori development schemes, the purchase of land and the expenditure of public funds. (3) There was little or no cooperation between the Minister and kindred departments, for which Cabinet Ministers have a collective responsibility. (4) The report of the commission provides abundant evidence of the lack of co-operation between Cabinet Ministers in the administration of the various departments of State, (5) The Native race has not received the treatment it was entitled to expect from the various Governments of the day in the matter of the development of Native lands, and other means of more developments. “Whatever may be said about this state of affairs, which we all regret, or about the Native Minister and his former colleagues in Cabinet, one would be safe in saying that the people of this country would 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,” said Mr. Savage. “It is as well that the Maori people should be warned against those who will attempt to make them believe that they are being attacked, or that racial carriers are likely to stand between them and justice. That can never be. Whatever mistakes have been made in their name and in ours —and they may have been many— Maori and Pakeha must make up their minds to rise or fall together.” “The report of the commission,” said Mr. Savage, “is the most damning indictment that has. ever been made against the administration of public affairs by any Government since selfgovernment was first established in Nevf Zealand. If, under the present system of constitutional government, the Government of ‘the day is not to be held responsible for the administration of all departments of State, there can bo no security for the public welfare. If a Government can escape the odium that must be attached to bungling or maladministration of a department of State by making a scapegoat of one of its members who happens to be in immediate control, the present system of Government is doomed.

“Whatever way one looks at this unfortunate state of affairs, it must bo admitted that there is a collective as well as an individual responsibility resting with the members. It is clear from the report of the commission that there was little or no co-opera-

tion between departments of State, Evidence to that effect takes us back to March 10, 1932. On that date the Controller arid Auditor-General made a complaint to the Treasury that the Native Department did not co-operate with the Lands Department or the Valuation Department in the matter of making land purchases. The Government either did not know of this, or it

failed to act upon information that was available to it through the various departments.” Mr. Savage quoted a report from the commission relating to the condition of Natives at the Te Kao settlement in 1925. It was stated that most of the children were in a starving condition, and that Judge Acneson had stated that one out of every four children under 12 months of age died. Mr, W. E. Parry (Labour—Auckland Central): “Who was the Minister then?”

Mr, Savage: “Certainly not the exMinister of Native Affairs. I say that it is certain that the present state of the Native Department does not date from the time of appointment of the ex-Minister.”

Mr. Coates; “What do you mean by the ex-Minister?” Mr. Savage: “I mean the immediate ex-Minister.”

Mr. Coates: “Why don’t you make it plain?” Mr. Savage:- “I can’t make it any plainer. Mr. Coates was Minister from 1926 to 1928, a period which the commission says was largely responsible for the condition of things today.” Mr. Savage pointed out that complaints concerning Maori ' Land Boards had been made to the AuditorGeneral as long as two years ago, and no notice had been taken of these complaints. He said that the thanks of the House and the country were duo to the Controller and AuditorGeneral for his consistent and capable services. No one in the cbuntry had given more loyal service for the common welfare. It had been said that the Auditor-General was “up a tree.” but it waS obvious from the commission’s report that ho had come down from his leafy solitude, and had been in other places as well. The Royal Commission was also entitled to thanks for the full report that had been provided for the benefit of those interested.