NATIVE AFFAIRS

Taranaki Daily News, 20 July 1934, Page 9

NATIVE AFFAIRS

DEVELOPMENT SCHEMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR WORK. COUNSEL’S CRITICISM. MINISTER'S WIDE CONTROL. Public proceedings in the Native Affairs inquiry recommenced in Wellington on Wednesday when counsel’s addresses were opened by Mr. R. H. Quilliam, who was appointed by the Government to assist the commission, in a broad survey of the evidence. He laid a complaint against the Native Minister, Sir Apirana Ngata, of having carried on with land development work for the Maoris without adequate planning and stocktaking. For this, as in certain other aspects of the department's administration, counsel submitted that the wide personal control which the Minister exercised left him with full responsibility. It was further suggested that he had rushed through with the development schemes with the object of committing the country to as much expenditure as possible so that they would have to be continued. Mr. Justice Smith is presiding over the commission, and associated with him are the Hon. J. Alexander, Mr. D. G. Johnston and Mr. W. L. Nelson. Before counsel’s addresses began, one further witness was heard. This was John Matapui Ellison, licensed interpreter and farmer near Dunedin, who appeared as representative of certain of the Maoris of Otago. SUPERVISOR’S MISTAKE. Witness considered that the development scheme had been a great thing for tthe Maoris, especially in teaching them to cultivate their own lands. But the scheme was good only if the supervisors were practical men. He referred to a mistake made by a supervisor on the Oraku block, Southland, where the burning off of the bush had been left too late. In consequence, the undergrowth had come up, and the block was now in a terrible state. Witness complained that £ll,OOO of accumulated rents,’ received for leases of the Port Chalmers block, and due to his people, had been requisitioned by the Native Trustee. This money, he contended, should.be refunded to the Maoris for distribution among the kaiangas for the building of meeting halls, preservation T pf cemeteries, and so on. Witness criticised the methods by which the Maoris Purposes Fund had been distributed, and suggested that control of the fund should be taken out of the hands of the board and vested in the Maori councils which are appointed to deal with the health and welfare of the Maori people throughout New Zealand. Referring to the payments made from the fund to Dr. Buck during his recent visit to New Zealand, witness said the Minister s statement as contained in the Press, that this would be approved by Maoris throughout the country, was not correct. The southern Maoris considered that, as Dr. Buck was being paid by the University of Honolulu, he should not have received anything from the fund. Witness said he spoke feelingly, as Dr. Buck was a relative of his. MR. QUILLIAM’S ADDRESS. The scope of the commission’s inquiry had been too wide for him to be able to comment on every point, that had come before it, said Mr. Quilliam in introducing his address. .The inquiry had been concerned chiefly with the administration of the Maori land development schemes, the Native Trust Office, the Maori Land Board, the East Coast Trust, the unemployment funds entrusted to the Minister and the affairs of the non-departmental boards and the Maori Soliders’ Fund. Mr. Quilliam pointed out that before the “revolutionary legislation” of 1929 the department was small, had few and limited activities, and was almost entirely not concerned with land settle-, ment and farming. Up to that time there was very little that called for investigation. Owing, no doubt, primarily to the movement that began for settling Maoris on the land, and owing to the difficulties in carrying out. this object, it was felt that further assistance was needed. The consolidation method had been found slow and cumbersome and it was felt that something more was needed in that connection also.

“It certainly is a point for consideration whether the increased powers granted vzere wisely granted,” he continued. “Up to that time the department liad not been concerned with the farming of lands, and it did not have the staff required. It is plain, also, that some of the presidents and members of the Maori Land Board had no interest in farming. In spite of those facts the extended powers were given and the department’s activities increased. Assistance from State funds was asked for, and in 1929 the legislation which has had such serious consequences in New Zealand was passed. For the first time public money was about to be used for the development of Maori lands. “MATTER FOR GREAT REGRET.”

‘Most people are in sympathy with the motives inspiring the passing of the legislation. The problem of the Maori people’s future was appreciated and the leaders considered it could be met by settlement on the land. Therefore it is a matter for great regret that arising out of the legislation so much trouble and criticism should have been met with. It is a matter for comment that so little progress should have been made in the actual settlement of the Natives.” Mr. Quilliam continued with a critical examination of the legislation itself, which, he said, for general vagueness left much to be desired. Whatever the outcome of the schemes might be, it was obvious that the legislation would have to be recast.

Mr. Quilliam commented on the fact that there had been no provision for leasing of the development lands. The absence of a definite policy in regard to land tenure had been the cause of much dissatisfaction. It seemed that this matter had deliberately been left in doubt. It was never adequately considered, and it was most important that legislation should make it perfectly clear what was to happen. Judge Harvey’s comment served to show how very unconsidered and incomplete the legislation Was. r!> CONSOLIDATION BROKEN DOWN. Coming to the problem of consolidation, Mr. Quilliam said it seemed clear that this method had broken down. The evidence had shown it to be a slow process, and one without end. “The advantages of consolidation, if it were practical, are obvious,’’ Mr. Quilliam continued, “but the difficulties are tremendous. There are, for instance, the question of time, the expense of survey, the expense of providing adequate staffing, the difficulty of providing suitable lands, and the overcoming of opposition brought about chiefly by sentiment. It is plain that, for consolidation to be successful, a vigorous educational policy would have to be carried

Mr. Quilliam then referred to three weaknesses connected with the organisation of the development schemes, the extraordinary haste with which the schemes were put into operation, the lack of planning throughout the whole o he administration of the schemes, and the fact that no review of progress seemed to have been made. A note of urgency seemed to run through everything the Native Minister did, he said. The actual carrying out of the development schemes was ahead of the organisation all the time. Complete individualism was not possible, and therefore a compromise was effected by the use of the family group, which, however, was only a postponement of the difficulty. If consolidation were gone on with, it seemed essential that there should be some radical change in the laws of succession. Otherwise the same difficulties would be cropping up every few years. If individualisation were aimed at, Mr. Quilliam said that the use of some method such as His Honour s suggestion of the Crown acquiring all the lands and allocating them would have to be faced. It might be advisable to educate the people more in the direction of surrendering their lands, not necessarily to the Crown, but to some body under the Crown, for re-allocation, rather than to depend on consolidation as a remedy for the difficulties. “NO LOGICAL PLANNING.” It was a matter for the strongest criticism that there had been no logical planning and stocktaking during the progress of the scheme. One would consider that the first thing to do would have been to undertake a survey of the people and the’ lands available, and from the results to draw up a plan for carrying out the policy. Nothing of that kind was ever done. Although there were admittedly many difficulties in the way, it was surprising that no attempt at. logical planning had been made. . “Have the schemes justified themselves? In proportion to the total population, and the huge amount of money expended, very little has been done,” Mr. Quilliam said. “The problem has been only nibbled at, and in no way resolved. He continued with the suggestion that the Minister’s personal influence in connection with the Natives had been exaggerated in much of the evidence before the commission. Of course it was true from the point of view of the Minister, when he said that there was "too much Minister and not enough department.” “SHOULD HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS.” “The fact that re-organisation was required in the head and district offices should have been obvious. We have seen how the accounting and stores control rules lagged behind the introduction' of the schemes. To the fact that head office was without an accountant for some six months- in 1929-30 has been attributed a great deal of the troubles that afterward occurred. I suggest that is a very belated excuse put forward to explain the lack of organisation. It could not be said that the Public Service Commissioner would have refused to allow the appointment of a relieving accountant for such an important organisation spending large sums of public money. “It was obvious also that a new system of accounting should have been introduced at once, but nobody at that time took any real trouble. Whether the Minister really appreciated the position it is difficult to say, although one cannot readily imagine that he could have overlooked its importance. I think we are justified in thinking that the department itself would do nothing because it had not been taken into the confidence of the Minister; he did not convey to his officers his plans probably because he did not know fully himself what tire plans would be. , “Even if it was not known at the beginning it is difficult to understand why later on the position was not realised soon afterward and a serious attempt made to catch up the department’s arrears. Arising out of the inquiry from time to time it has been shown that red tape was particularly feared by the Minister. While Government methods of administration are often subject to attack for their red tape characteristics, it is clear that where people are concerned with spending public money there must be strict rules. SEVERE CONDEMNATION. “I suggest it is a matter for severe condemnation that anybody in authority, particularly a Minister, should attack the necessity for strict rules. An individual who failed in business and was found without proper accounts would .be subject to prosecution. My submission is that the Minister must fake the full responsibility for these.'defects. , “But the Undersecretary, Judge Jones, cannot be excused; nor can Mr. Shepherd, the chief clerk.. Here were two men long experienced in administration methods whose duty it should have been to see that proper methods were followed. I can appreciate their difficult position,, but nothing can excuse them for failing to point out very sharply the defects that came under their notice. “Judge Jones throughout had no real functions in connection with the work. One cannot help wondering whether the Minister deliberately retained Judge Jones in the position in order that the nominal permanent head of the department might be a man who would be a pliant instrument in his hands . . • “The Minister was interfering in every way in the administration of the schemes, thereby causing a great deal of trouble. He was in direct control of the field staff. It is hard to understand why he should have dismissed such men as Barry and Rutledge . . . One wanders whether the Minister considered them not sufficiently pliable to loose administrative methods." “CHAOTIC” POSITION IGNORED. The first complain by Audit was made in January, 1932, Mr. Quilliam continued. It was impossible to believe, however, that the report came as a bolt from the blue. All the Minister considered he should do about it was to send the report on to the district office concerned, and he left it at that. He should himself have known what was going on, and have taken active steps to remedy the wrongs. From January, 1932, no excuse was of any avail. In April, 1932, another report in connection with Rotorua was received, which said in clear terms that an audit was impracticable. Surely anybody, however unaccustomed to business, would have known that if it was impossible to make an audit, affairs must have been in a chaotic state. Between January and July, 1932, 16 more schemes or subdivisions of schemes were put into operation. Yet nowhere was it suggested that in any important matter these Audit reports were, not justified. Surely that was a time when there should have been a review of all that had been done. But this plan was not adopted. Mr. Quilliam suggested it would be a proper matter for the commission to consider whether it was not the object of the Minister to commit the country to as much expenditure as possible so that the schemes would have to go on. There seemed to be no other reason for his rushing the development ahead as ho did. There were further reports in 1933 showing grave irregularities on the East Coast. Again throughout this year Audit complaints were not seriously challenged. Yet they must have shown, the position was getting worse. Meanwhile from outside the department action was taken. But the Minister, even as late as October, 1933, despite all that had taken place, including the activities of the Public .Service Commisioner. resisted any attempt tu re-organise his department.

Understaffing and poor accommodation had been put forward as the reason for the beginnings of all the trouble, said Mr. Quililam. But when the matter was investigated, it was made plain that those responsible for having a proper staff and accommodation took no action at all. Expenditure in the department was £5O 000 a year before 1929; a few years later it was £300,000. Completely new work which involved the expenditure and accounting for of large sums of money was being done. Everything showed that actually there was under-staffing,- with a consequent prejudicial effect on the work, but Mr. Quilliam suggested that it was being used now as an excuse which was really not justified by the history of the facte. It was idle to refer to the clamour for economy as any justification for cutting down head office or field staffs. •. FRAUDULENCE SUGGESTED. Concerning the allegations on the methods by which some of the land was purchased, he considered the position was very serious. In 1931 over £20,000 was spent in buying eleven pieces of land in the Rotorua district. The duty of the defendant was to get a Government valuation on every property before it was bought, but this was seldom done. As a rule the price paid was above the valuation. It was true Government valuations might be lower than market prices, but these valuations had been made in 1928, while the purchases were made in a time of depressed prices. The Minister himself took a very active part in the purchases, and because of that, because he usurped the duty ol his officers, he would have to stand the full responsibility himself. Every rule of prudence which was normally followed seemed to have been disregarded.

Mr. Quilliam then went on to criticise adversely various land, stock and stores purchases made by the department. Referring to the Iles purchase ,he said that, without being over-emphatic, everything about it was most unsatisfactory, and suggested there was something fraudulent oi- corrupt.

“PROCLAIMING A TRIUMPH”

COUNSEL ADDRESSES COMMISSION.

CRITICISM OF THE MINISTER.

By Telegraph—Press Association.

Wellington, Last Night.

“I am not here to justify a failure; I am here to proclaim a triumphant success,” announced Mr. G. P. Finlay, counsel appearing before the Native Affairs Commission on behalf of the Maori race during to-day’s proceedings at Wellington. He pointed out that out of 81 land development schemes 77 had been commercially successful. At the same time he considered the whole question cf Native affairs had to be treated as a “humanistic problem and not as a cold and commercial one.” The conclusion of the address by Mr. R. H. Quilliam, counsel appointed to assist the commission, was characterised by criticism of the Native Minister, Sir Apirana Ngata, particularly, he said, because he had allowed himself to be placed so often in positions where there was a danger of other interests conflicting with his duty. When Mr. Finlay rose to ieply he commented on Mr. Quilliam’s address as be-

ing uniform in one respect—“wholesome and unqualified denunciation of one man only, the Native Minister.” Mr. Finlay is expected to conclude his address to-morrow.