SIR A. NGATA

Southland Times, Issue 22473, 8 November 1934, Page 8

SIR A. NGATA

REPLY TO CRITICS COMMISSION’S REPORT OWN POLICY DEFENDED A STRIKING SPEECH. (From Our Parliamentary Reporter.) Wellington, November 7. Seldom becoming emotional but always commanding the complete attention of the House, Sir Apirana Ngata spoke for an hour and twenty-five minutes this afternoon defending his administration. He challenged the report of the Commission in many particulars, declaring it did not go back . far enough, but was purely critical of himself, for whatever lack of organization there had been in the Department had been remedied before the Commission sat. Sir Apirana Ngata created a deep impression with his speech and his effort commanded applause from both sides of the House when he finished. Sir Apirana said that the House knew that he had offered to resign 11 months ago when the Goldsmith charges were first brought up. The Prime Minister would not accept the resignation and had said that it was best to see the fight through. He had remained in the Cabinet during that 11 months and had experienced a very unhappy time, although he considered it would have been in his own interests to have gone out. A better fight could have been put up if right from the beginning the inquiry had taken the form of a prosecution with definite charges. Towards the end it had been patent to the whole of New Zealand that the inquiry had developed into a prosecution, and a vicious prosecution at that. Sir Apirana said his position had been made very difficult because all the files relating to land settlement had been taken out of his office by the Commission. “I’m not squealing,” he said, “but I want to point out this—it would have been better for me if there had been a straight out prosecution with definite charges.” Sir Apirana made feeling reference to the way in which other members of Cabinet had worked with him during the last 11 months, and expressed particular appreciation of the assistance given by the Rt. Hon. G. W. Forbes and the Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates. “Whatever the feelings of members of Cabinet may have been,” he said, “to the last they played the part of gentlemen.” When the report was received by the Government, he said, he resigned, because fully two-thirds of it indicted the Native Minister. The combined effect of the report made it impossible for him to remain in Cabinet. “For myself as a Maori,” said Sir Apirana, “as a member of Parliament, as a public minded man, the principal question is, can I still hold my head up amongst men?” So far as his own people were concerned, Mr T. Henare, speaking as a chief and representative -of a large district, had shown that he (Sir Apirana Ngata) could hold his bead up before the Maori race. “What about the pakeha?” he asked vehemently. Mr H. G. R. Mason: The same. Sir Apirana: Wait a bit. “When speaking in a Cabinet room,” said Sir Apirana, “Mr Coates said ‘the Native Minister is white, although he is a Maori.” He could accept that as a compliment. Others had expressed similar views and had expressed confidence in his integrity. “If I can hold up my head amongst my people and in Parliament,” he said, “life is worth while yet, because there is still a great deal of work to do.” Report Badly Arranged. Referring to the report, he said that it painted a picture of Native land development in such a way that it made people outside Parliament wonder what sort of a man Sir Apirana Ngata was. The report was badly arranged and was without light and shade. It thrashed away at small things and in some respects missed the big things altogether. Sir Apirana deprecated the suggestion that the report might stir up trouble in the ranks of the Native race, and reiterated his assurance that his people would abide by the decision that had been made. Parliament had goodwill towards the Maori race and he thanked members for that, but some of the Maoris misunderstood the position and claimed that the Native Ministers had been deposed because the pakehas were jealous of him, and wanted to get control of his departments. Sir Apirana went on to refer to personal attacks made in the report and dealt in detail with many of the allegations made. Reference had been made to the Minister’s position as titular head of the Native Trust Office and chairman of the committee which had mortgage money from the Native Trustees. There were two points that ought to be brought forward in connection with that. One was that the Native Minister was never an owner of land and the other was that the mortgages were arranged about four or five years before he became Minister. He wanted to ask how many Ministers and members in the House who during the last few years, had not used their personal influence to stop mortgagors from being driven off their land. How many could be exculpated from that charge? It that was. so, surely some credit should be given to the Minister who acted in connection with the land of his own people and in which he had no direct interest. Family Interests. Proceeding to refer to the charge that he had assisted members of Ids own family, Sir Apirana said that front 1924 to 1928 when he was a private member of the House, and yet a member of the Maori Purposes Board, resolutions went through meeting after meeting distributing assistance to Maori students all over New Zealand, including his own children. The report dealt with the period from 1929 to 1934. The Maori Purposes Board had not allowed the fact that certain students were children of members of Parliament to deter them from granting assistance where it was needed. There was one item featured in the report which dealt with a member of his family, the circumstances of which occurred entirely during the time that he was Native Minister. The authorities took him away from Canterbury College for the purpose of teaching the Maori language at Te Aute. Financial considerations forced the Te Aute College authorities to dispense with the services of some of their staff and the Maori Purposes Board gave a grant to enable the services of the Minister’s son to be retained. The fact that the teacher was the Minister’s son did not enter into the matter.

“What is the effect of all this on the native people?” he asked. “Some say that they have got rid of the Native Minister because they were jealous of him. Some say that the Native Min-

ister was in the road and that he was the only man who could stand up and fight the pakeha.” East Coast Maoris.

Sir Apirana went on to refer to the comments of the Commission regarding East Coast Maoris and Ngatiporou and said the East Coast Maoris were entitled to commendation for the work they had done. That work was going to go on in spite of the report that gave false colour to the position. Referring next to the vouchers for the use of motor cars, Sir Apirana said if there were- complaints against the Minister and his Private Secretary, they should have been reported to the Department of Internal Affairs which dealt with the expenses of Ministers and their secretaries. Nothing of the sort had been done. The vouchers were held back until the Commission sat in Gisborne in June and one evening the counsel for the Maoris rang him up to say that they were about to be sprung on the Commission. It was considered to be good publicity matter and they wanted it brought before the Commission.

“So far as the report is concerned, if I have one criticism for it, it is that it paints the picture in such a way that the man outside is shaking his head and wondering what sort of a man Sir Apirana T. Ngata is. The report is badly arranged and it has no lights and shades in it. It thrashes away at small things as well as big things, and in some respects it fails entirely to grip the big things. “The Leader of the Opposition last night gave a hint that somebody might make an effort to stir up trouble in the Maori race following upon this report, but when the report was presented the Maori member hastened to assure the Prime Minister that they would do their best to see that any misunderstandings were cleared away, and that Parliament’s position would be explained to the Maori people. We take hope and courage from the debate. We take comfort from this: That on both sides of the House, Parliament is unanimous on one thing, its goodwill towards the Maori people and its determination to see that the best is done. We thank you very much for that.”