NATIVE AUDIT

Taranaki Daily News, 13 April 1934, Page 7

NATIVE AUDIT

AFFAIRS OF DEPARTMENT USUAL RULES DISREGARDED BVIDENCE TO COMMISSION MISMANAGEMENT ALLEGED PSYCHOLOGY OF THE MAORI By Telegraph—Press Association. Wellington, Last Night. Statements that development scheme ■tores had been used for the improvement of private properties, that out of a total of 27,492 ewes purchased in the Botorua district no fewer than 3530 -were unaccounted for, that unemployment money had been paid to Maoris who were not entitled to relief and that sums up to £4OO had been paid to well-to-do-farmers for ploughing and grassing their own lands were made in the evidence given to-day before the Royal Commission on native affairs. The principal witness was the Comptroller and Auditor-General, Colonel G. S'. C. Campbell, as direct result of whose last annual report to Parliament the commission was appointed. In evidence given on oath he said that in the opinion of the Audit Office the audit difficulties would seem to have been the result of the system adopted by the Native Minister, which was to assume control of administrative matters and issue instructions frequently by telephone direct to local subordinate officers, instead of through the department. He stated that the Minister’s toll account for one year came to £7Bl, which was greater than the amount voted by Parliament to cover the cost of the toll calls of all Ministers to the Crown. Colonel Campbell gave several instances of how the usual rules of stores accounting had been disregarded and said it was not surprising that the department was unable to comply audit requirements. He stated that a good deal had been said regarding the necessity for studying the psychology or the Maori when considering the expenditure of public money, but pointed out that due regard for Maori psychology was not necessarily opposed to efficiency in administration and economy in ■pending.

NATIVE MINISTER’S STATEMENT.

Complying with the desire expressed by the Commission yesterday Sir Api- - rar,a Ngata, Native Minister, to-day presented a statement in reply to a number of questions put to him. Dealing with the main object of consolidation schemes he quoted as follows from his statement on native land development presented to Parliament in 1931: “It may be added that consolidation further enables a complete stocktaking to be made of native land titles Within the scope of a scheme and their classification for purposes of local taxation, and finally organises the title in such a way that it is available for any purpose owners may elect to adopt. “Consolidation is the most comprehenwive method of approximating the goal cf individual or, at least, compact family ownership,” the Minister continued. “Having achieved this goal, which is the immediate object of the consolidation scheme, the individual or family may cell, lease or farm the now compacted and defined holding. “The policy was not conceived necesartarily as a preliminary to land development, for the latter did not come into existence as a matter of State policy until 1929, while the former was in- ’ gtituted by the Native Land Act in 1909. The difficulties of a communal title are stated briefly in the earlier portions of the paper quoted from and the consolidation of title is given as one of ■flip devices adopted to surmount them.

INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION. “It is my considered opinion,” Sir Apirana Ngata said, “that consolidation of the interests of individual Maoris or families in compact areas may be undertaken as a preliminary to development, or proceed side by side with development, or follow development without any difficulties that cannot be surmounted, and that the correct policy to follow must be dictated by the facts of each case and with due regard to the mental make-up of each Maori community concerned. The ultimate object must be the same—separate holdings in economic areas with fenceable boundaries capable of profitable utilisation by the individual or the family.”

Explaining the intention of legislation dealing with native land settlement Sir Apirana said the United Government took office in 1928 with land settlement as one of the major planks of its policy, as applied to European, including Crown lands and native lands. The then Minister of Lands introduced the Land Act, 1929, which in section 6 provided for development of Crown lands, the policy being to prepare suitable areas by clearing or cultivation and by the provision of fencing, building and a water supply if necessary and road access before selection.

The Minister was armed with extensive powers exercisable on the recommendation of the Development Board. The wisdom of having such a board was much debated at the time. When the Native Land Bill was finally presented to Parliament in the same session it was decided to eliminate the board in the corresponding development provision, a step which was approved by both the native affairs committee and Parliament.

OWNERS’ INTERESTS SERVED. “Native lands,” the Minister added, "have ascertained beneficial owners with rights that cannot be disregarded and with strong views regarding their control and management. The Native Department must serve their interests and use their labour to develop the human material in the course of developing the land, and regard the development of that material as its supreme job. “A general plan may be conceived and laid down but those responsible for its execution must be prepared to vary and adjust it io the circumstances of each Maori community, for no two are alike. In the circumstances the powers of the controlling authority, be it Minister or board, must be elastic and extensive, but they cannot be absolute as in the case of Crown lands.”

The Under-Secretary of Native Affairs, Mr. P. G. Pearce, concluded his evidence before the Commission to-day by referring to the remedial measures he had taken since assuming office in November. Answering question Mr. Pearce said he was very much in favour of the abolition of a .number of boards and their functions being brought under the control of the head office. He undertook to prepare a memorandum showing how he thought the reorganisation should be carried out. He said that in connection with the staff positions he was having a fair amount of trouble. One of the weaknesses was the deficiency of the field staff and he had been taking steps to remedy it. He seemed to have come against a certain amount of difficulty in getting suitable individuals. He had attempted to fill one position, but two had

refused the offer of the appointment and another was not accepted to the Native Minister. The chairman: The Minister declined to approve your suggestion? Mr. Pearce: It was really a matter for the Public Service Commissioner, but seeing that the Native Minister expressed a decided objection to the individual we had in view I proceeded no further with it. The chairman: You are having difficulty in carrying out your administrative duties? Mr. Pearce replied that possibly he might not have accomplished as much as he might have done and there were still difficulties in the way of the department operating smoothly. Mr. Michael Joseph Lawless, registrar of the Aotea Maori Land Board, and formerly an accountant L- the head office of the Native Department, gave evidence regarding the staff shortage. The head office, he said, also was cramped for accommodation. For two years the whole accounts staff of the head office was instructed to work overtime for three nights a week. This, together with the cramped office, was a bar io efficient service*