NATIVE AFFAIRS

Taranaki Daily News, 18 December 1933, Page 15

NATIVE AFFAIRS

DEBATE IN PARLIAMENT QUESTION OF ROYAL COMMISSION. REMARKS BY MR. C. A. WILKINSON. . The- debate in the House of Representatives last Thursday on the Native Affiairs report by the Auditor-General, in which Mr. C. A. Wilkinson (Ind.—Egmont) was a prominent speaker, is reported as follows in Hansard:— Mr. Wilkinson (Egmont): Sir, the Leader of the Opposition 'seems to find fault with the committee’s action in suggesting the appointment of a Royal Commission. He thinks that the delay that will occur will be somewhat fatal in regard to its usefulness., I wish to point out that the committee could only make a preliminary investigation A of the matters under discussion and decide for itself whether there was cause for further inquiry. That was the duty of the committee. It took considerable time and trouble looking into matters, and decided there was cause for further inquiry. It seemed to the committee—and it was unanimous on the point—that the only possible way of getting an inquiry that would satisfy the House and : the country was by a Royal Commission. That course of action seemed to me quite a reasonable and proper one, and I fail to see that the Leader of the Opposition is justified in making a complaint in regard to it. The Prime’ Minister referred particularly to the failure of the Maori Land Settlement Board, and I would like here briefly to refer to that board and how it came into existence. In the Land Act of 1931, Section 522 conferred great powers on the Native Minister. That section replaced Section 23 of the Native Land Amendment Act of 1929. The Act of 1931 was a consolidating measure and conferred still greater powers on the Native Minister. In" 1932 the Economy Commission investigated Native affairs and reported to Parliament in coni nection with matters controlled by the Native Department. As a result of that report, the procedure was reversed and Parliament took away from the Minister the increased power vested in him and conferred them on a - board of control, which was supposed at that time to have complete control over Native matters. The Act of 1932 clearly defines the duties of the Maori Land Board. Sub-section <6) of Section 17 is as follows: “It shall be the duty of the Settlement Board to exercise control over (a) th2 investment on mortgage, or otherwise of all moneys available' for investment in the Native Trustee's Account, or in the account of a Maori Land Board, or of moneys appropriated by. Parliament under the principal Act for the purpose of advances to Natives, and to approve of the securities upon which such moneys are to be invested; (b) the expenditure on all farming operations undertaken by’ the Native Minister under section 522 of the principal Act, or by .the Native Trustee, or a Maori Land Board, or the East Coast Commissioner under their powers in that behalf; (c) the appointment of the services of supervisors or managers. in respect of one or .more of such fanning operations, and to decide what sum (if any) would, in its opinion, be a fair proportion of the expense to charge to the Native Trustee, or a Maori Land,Board, or the East Coast Commissioner in respect of the services of any such supervisor or manager, and to adjust the same accordingly. The Native Trustee, Maori Land Board and East Coast Commissioner are authorised to contribute towards such expense.” ■■

INTENTION OF ACT.

That’ section seemed to give to the board complete control over Native administration. When the matter was before the committee I raised the question of the board’s failure, but did not get far. But I think honourable members will see that the 1932 Act intended at any rate to transfer those great powers from the Minister to the board. As the Prime Minister pointed out, the board is composed of highly placed public officials, and it seems strange that, it has taken the Prime Minister twelve, months to discover that this board was not funcr: tioning. He seems to have only just discovered that fact. We seem to be barking up the wrong tree. The whole blame for the failure in the control of operations under the farm settlement scheme seems to be thrown on the Native Minister. I think that if I - were the Native Minister I would try to point out that there was a board that should have taken upon its shoulders the duties of administration. But apparently the board has never functioned. Mr. Parry: Who was to take the initiative to get the board to function? Mr. Wilkinson: I must say that the Native Minister is chairman of the board, and it is possible that he may have been the convener of its meetings. I do not know. But the fact remains: that a very important board, set up by Parliament, has not functioned for-twelve months. I may be doing an injustice to the board, but the board has not been brought to book in connection with this matter.. I would like to know whether the officials named by the Prime Minister, as being members of the board have time from their other official duties to attend to such an important matter as the Maori Land Settlement Board. It is also a fact that “such other members not exceeding two, as the Governor-General may appoint” may be put on the board. Whether they have ever been appointed I do not know. We were dealing on the committee with as many matters as we could take on in the limited time available, and this„ point was apparently not discussed. The Prime Minister seems to have forgotten that this board was ever set up. It is quite evident that it was not operating because if it had been he would have been in some sort of touch with the board. The honourable member for Avon was not quite fair to the Minister of Finance. He rather implied that it was due to that Minister that greater publicity was not given, to the proceedings of the committee, in not admitting the Press during the investigation. I am bound to say that the right honourable gentleman was quite definite in saying that the most open inquiry possible should- be made, and that he had no objection to publicity of any kind. There can be no real-justification for the honourable member for Avon’s complaint,

because the whole of the evidence will be placed on the table of the House, and made available to the newspapers and the country. That can only be done later. Mr. Endean: That was the right honourable member’s suggestion. Mr. Wilkinson: Exactly. • If the honourable member for Avon wished to admit the Press, why did he not move in that direction. Mr. Sullivan: I did suggest it.

Mr. Wilkinson: The honourable member suggested it, but he did not press the question.. The report is made unanimously. The representatives of the Labour Party on the committee agreed to every word of it. The member for Avon assisted in the compilation of the report. That Was the time when he should have made his objection, but he did not. Mr. Coates: If we had taken any motion of the kind at that stage, the committee would have had to adjourn, in order to get the authority of the House. We said that the question could be raised later. Mr. Wilkinson: There was nothing hidden. Every Word of the evidence will be available to members when it is laid on the table of the House. That can be done to-morrow, or shortly afterwards. The honourable member for Christchurch South was good enough to say that the inquiry was as complete as it could possibly be made within the time allowed. I think that was a very fair admission. I do not think the public of New Zealand will be disappointed with the report. In affect it makes one recommendation—the establishment’ of a commission.

Mr. Parry: And apologises for the Audi-tor-General;

Mr. Wilkinson: There is no apology whatever for the Auditor-General in the report. I will deal with the Native matter first. This Native land settlement scheme'is a vast scheme that has grown up almost in a night, and it is quite evident—and the Native Minister was good enough to admit it—it was done in a hurry.. It was an improvised scheme of settlement for Natives, and the Minister had no great assistance. Perhaps he did not ask for it; he certainly was faced with great difficulties in pushing the scheme through, but he did the best he could under the circumstances, and while not-offering any apology for him, because he may not need any apology, he undoubtedly had an enormous amount of work to face. The honourable gentleman gave evidence before the committee, and took up almost three hours. I want to be quite fair and must say that the Native Minister made an absolutely frank statement of the position. He admitted definitely that- the checks and supervision should have been more efficient, and his only excuse,, if it could be called an excuse, was that the scheme was launched during the depression, and it was a most difficult job. I quite agree that the job was most difficult, and if there had been failure, and I think there has, then something can be said on the other side. I believe the. Native Minister attempted to do an impossible thing. He should have demanded a full staff of competent men, in the field, in the office, and everywhere else, so that he could have been thoroughly advised. Mr. Langstone: The experts let him down.

ALLEGED INCOMPETENCE.

Mr. Wilkinson: He certainly did not have enough, and I doubt if he had any experts at all. It came out in evidence before the committee that one of the officials from the office in Wellington went out .to purchase stock. I say definitely that that gentleman was not competent to purchase stock, and he admitted it. I have had a little experience in purchasing stock, arid know what it means. Mr. Stallworthy: Did you ever fajl

Mr. Wilkinson; Very badly indeed. It is a difficult and tricky business. I asked whether there were any other officials expert enough to do this class of work, but apparently there were none. There were no supervising officers at the side of the Minister to go and inspect the various schemes, and it must be remembered that there are no less than fortytwo schemes altogether. I do not think any member of this House would attempt to control 42 such schemes .unless he had an efficient organisation behind him. The Minister never had that, although it may be his fault or that of the board that such an organisation was not set up. Mr. Fraser: What is the honourable member’s opinion? Mr. Wilkinson: I agree with the report of the committee that an inquiry' should be made, and in the way suggested in the report. I subscribe to that entirely. The position cannot be allowed to continue, and a change must be made in the administering of the scheme. We cannot allow forty-two schemes to be in operation unless we have absolute control over them, and that is what we are hoping will be achieved. I wonder why his legislation of 1932 appointing the Native Lands Settlement Board proved a failure. It was intended definitely by Parliament that that Act should be a workable Act and should be put into operation in order to obviate the troubles we are now up against. It was foreseen long ago that these troubles would arise. This Act was a definite attempt to prevent them, but it failed to do so; and it has yet to be explained why this board did not function as it was intended by Parliament to do in connection with these matters. I quite agree with other honourable members that this Parliament has a great deal to be thankful for in that we know that we have an absolutely fearless official in the Auditor-General. He was in sharp conflict with the Treasury as to the form in which accounts should be kept; and when two such great experts differed, it was, of course, impossible for the committee to decide between them. It was not qualified to do so. Mr. Stallworthy: Does the honourable member think that someone should decide?

SAFEGUARD FOR COUNTRY.

Mr. Wilkinson: No; no one can interfere with the Auditor-General, who is an independent officer of Parliament and a great safeguard for the country. And, on the other hand, the Treasury is no doubt right in presenting its accounts in the form which it thinks best. It would be wrong for the committee to suggest that tlie Auditor-General should do anything at all. The Treasury has the right to present its reports in the way it thinks fit; and the Auditor-General recognises the right of the Treasury to present its accounts in the form it thinks fit. There is nothing wrong with the accounts of the country. There is no suggestion of embezzlement or anything

of that sort. It is a mere matter of book-keeping and form; and where the very small matters referred to were not entirely legal, the Auditor-General has recommended that they be validated. That is very easy. It happens nearly every year that payments not quite legal are made; and he recommends that validating legislation be brought in. That has been the case ever since I have been in Parliament; and, I think, always will be the case. The Auditor-General admitted that perhaps he had over-emphasis-ed these small matters. Ke practically said that too much prominence was given to these minoi' matters of detail. Mr. Fraser: Does the honourable gentleman suggest that attention 4 should not be called to them at all? Mr. Wilkinson: No; but that they should not be emphasised in the way they are. Mr. Fraser: How would he do it, then?

Mr. Wilkinson: He could group them together as matters requiring to be validated. At any rate the Auditor-General himself heard the views of the committee on these matters; and he himself agreed that perhaps he had over-emphasised these little points. But the committee was fully seized of the fact that the AuditorGeneral is a free and unfettered officer of Parliament, and it is greatly in the interest of the State that he should continue to be so. Amongst the officials appointed either by the Board or the Native Minister there is one getting the lordly sum of £75 a year, and he handled large sums of public money. This man was employed by another firm, and no doubt he was getting another salary, but the fact remains that this country was paying him £75 a year and he was handling thousands of pounds of public money.

Mr. Langstone: On whose recommendation was he appointed?

MAKING OF APPOINTMENTS.

Mr. Wilkinson: I should say that if he did the board’s work he would be recommended for appointment by the board, because it is clearly defined in the Act that the board shall recommend the appointments. The Public Service Commissioner only appoints after the recommendation has z been made. I do not know who actually recommended the man, but the fact remains that we cannot carry out these big schemes costing large sums of money unless we put somebody absolutely responsible in control. That is one of the causes of the trouble. Now, as to the unemployment question, the honourable member for Southern Maori district suggested that everything would be well if there was more money available. That seems to be a popular cry. But I would point out that this country has been generous to the Native people in this respect. The Unemployment Board will have handed over to the Maori Land Settlement Board by March 31 next no less than £121,000. Now there is a weakness here. The whole of that money is handed over to the Native Department, and is utterly beyond the control of the Unemployment Board. The grant was made to a Department of State just as grants are made to other Departments of State, but owing to the organisation of the department troubles arose over. the disbursement of the money. The Maoris have been fairly generously dealt with by this Dominion in connection with the unemployment scheme. Further, there are no less than 2,600 Natives who are taken care of by the Unemployment Board; and, strangely enough, out of about 15,000 able-bodied .men no less than 10,000 originally registered as unemployed workers. That shows that the Natives have no cause to complain in regard to the assistance they have received from the unemployment funds. I think that is all I have to say. Other speakers have covered some of the points I intended to refer to, but what I have said conveys my impression of the position.,