NATIVE LAND PURCHASES

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LIX, Issue 17953, 3 December 1932, Page 7

NATIVE LAND PURCHASES

DEFENCE BY MINISTER : ' ‘ __ ’ ' . CRITICISM RESENTED ; ; V v ' ’ * •• ' ‘ denial of extravagance - (Parliamentary Reporter.) f, WELLINGTON, this day. Declaring that he was very sensitive about charges of extravagance levelled against the Native Land Department, Sir Apirana Ngata told the House yesterday that he resented it, and denied its accuracy. He was moving the committal of- the Native Land Amendment Bill, which will facilitate the reorganisation of the department and its associated functions. " , ■ . , Sir Apirana said he had been Uyu o to get at the cause of the charge that ,there had been extravagance in the administration of his department, • in the management of native land settlement -and its widespread activities :n the development of native land. Joe thing was certain: That there had been officers of State in the past, and, perhaps, in the present, who regarded the Native Department as a sort of interior department,, which he resented very much. This prejudice might be bound up with the big problem of two races being associated together in the same country. , ’ .", , He had been told tnat Maori land boards should be abolished because they \vei*e either pot doing their job, or not properly looking after money, or, perhaps, something worse. Ho had gone to a great deal of trouble to find out if these statements were justified, and he had come to the conclusion that m the administration of moneys no department of State had a better record. Up till March 31 last, Maori land hoards found it necessary to sell up seven mortgagors. One was a Maori who owed £75. His asset realised £IOO. but there were six pakehas who owed £12,700, and the boards took over half the properties and sold the rest, making a, loss of £6300. “A RUBBER STAMP”

It had been suggested that the department had grown out of all proportion. He was sensitive about this criticism, and resented it because it was not correct.

A member: Is it not in the commission’s report 7 The Minister: \No, but it has been stated in the newspapers. If people liked to call the Minister a rubber stamp they could do it, continued Sir Apirana. ‘ They could either have a Minister or a board, and the people would say: “Why does not the Minister do his work?” The commission had said that the Native Minister possessed despotic powers. He had looked into this phase, and could not find that his powers were more despotic than those of other Ministers. Mr. M. J. Savage (Lab., Auckland West), who was acting-Leader of the Opposition during the absence of Mr. H. E. Holland, assured the Native Minister that tho thanks of the House were due to him. He would require evidence better than that of a Royal Commission to satisfy him that Sir Apirana had not been doiim his duty. He had been termed a rubber stamp in charge of an important department, and to call his department a ‘‘one-man show” unlike that of other Ministers was not fair. Apparently the commission simply acted on reports, probably biassed, which had been handed to them, and had heard certain people who were probably also biassed, but that did not help anyone. There was a good deal of ' overlapping in the Native Department, but lie had yet to learn that the Native Minister had done any worse than other Ministers.