DEFENCE OF GOVERNMENT

Stratford Evening Post, Volume III, Issue 197, 9 November 1934, Page 6

DEFENCE OF GOVERNMENT

Prime Minister's Speech "HAD DONE ITS DUTY" Minister's. Responsibility Press Association —Copyright Wellington, November 8. A defence of the Government in its administration of Native affairs was made bv the Prime Minister, the Rt.

Hon. G. W. Forbes, during the course ;of the debate in the House of Representatives to-day on Mr. Savage's motion and on the Native Affairs Commission's ,-report. Mr. Forbes contended the Government had done its duty on every occasion it was called upon, and he denied the collective responsibility of Cabinet. A Minister, he said, must accept the whole responsibility for anything that happened in his department. Mr. Forbes asked what was the real feeling of the Labour Party. Dealing with Mr. Savage's motion, he said he thought it was dealt with by the Minister of Finance. It was absurd to suggest the whole Cabinet should resign because a member in charge of a department did something in his own department. He quoted authorities in support of his contention that a Minister must accept the whole responsibility for what happened in his department. If it was a Cabinet matter Cabinet as a whole would have to accept responsibility. Economy Commission The Economy Commission in 1932 recommended that the affairs of the Native Department should be inquired into, but j he did not know any members of the commission who were vilified as the j 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 which was 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 course, cases of embezzlement that could not be avoided, but the public service in New Zealand was as honest as any public service in the world.

Department Reorganised In November, 1933, the department was completely reorganised and in December they had the report of the Auditor-Gen-eral, which it was felt should be investigated, and the Public Accounts Committee recommended that a Royal Commission should be set up. The Native Purposes Board was set up and the commission was appointed. Had the Government not done that the Government could have been held responsible. On every occasion a complaint was made by the Auditor-General the Government j backed him up. i The Government accepted the commis- ! sion's report and would put in operation I the matters of legislative changes recommended by it. The Native Depart- | | ment would then be on all fours with I the other Government departments. I There was nothing urgent; otherwise the I matter would be dealt with in the present session. I

i Sir Apirana Ngata had tendered his re- ! signation when the -Auditor-General's 1 report was received, but Mr. Forbes said he 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 he could not carry on the work with the same confidence as in the past. Mr. Forbes said he thought a good deal could be said on the Native Minister's side, but he accepted the commission's report. He had expected the Opposition's motion of no-confidence. That was its job, but he thought that asking the Gov- i ernment to accept the whole responsi- i bility was asking a great deal. If a case |

for the prosecution of any officials was disclosed that was a matter for the Auditor-General, not for the Governi ment. He thought that on all previous 'occasions the Auditor-General had done his duty in that respect and that the Auditor-General would also take any desirable steps regarding the recovery of the money. All the necessary machinery was provided and the Minister did not come into it. Co-ordination of Departments Every opportunity for the co-ordin-ation of departments was provided, «said

Mr. Forbes. What did-Mr.-McKeen mean ,by the statement that if the matter was investigated some Ministers of the Crown would not come too well out of it? • If a member had any charge he should supply information so that it could he followed up. Mr. McKeen: I had certain particulars. Mr. Forbes said that if Mr. McKeen had particulars he would be -pleased rto have them, as the Government was not afraid to take any matter up and would have any charge fully investigated. Mr. McKeen should either make a charge-or withdraw the remark. Mr. Howard had referred to the unemployment fund and said there was no more check on it than on Native affairs. Mr. Forbes said he 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 did not 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. The Manly Thing He thought Sir Apirana Ngata had done the manly thing. Sir Apirana said he did not agree with the report, and if Mr. Forbes were faced with a similar position he would act as the former I Minister 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 I Apirana had a difficult task; but he gave the Government great assistance. He was still the leader of the Native people, and the Government was thankful for his co-operation. He added that he hoped Sir Apirana would still be able to continue his assistance in the settlement policy, for without his assistance that scheme would not be able to be carried on. The alternative was unemployment, and he would endeavour to continue settlement as against work under unemployment schemes. Losses might be made, as they were made in European settlements, but the losses would be very small in consideration of the value of settling tha Native problem.