NATIVE AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXVII, Issue 19670, 12 December 1933, Page 8

NATIVE AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT

AUDITOR - GENERAL’S REVELATIONS FORM OF INVESTIGATION DISCUSSED By Telegraph—Press Association WELLINGTON, December 11. The form which the inquiry into the comments made in the report of the Controller and Auditor-General should take was discussed when the House of Representatives met this afternoon. The Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates sought leave to move that the report be referred to the Public Accounts Committee of the House. Mr M. J. Savage, Leafier of the Opposition: What is the object? Mr Coates: There are several matters that ought to go before the Committee. Mr J. A. Lee (Lab., Grey Lynn): Will that prevent the House from discussing the report in the meantime? Mr Coates: I could not say. Mr W. E. Parry (Lab., Auckland Central): But that is the point. Mr Coates said that it was a technical point which he had not considered. He was convinced that there were 15 or 16 matters raised in the report which should engage the attention of the Public Accounts Committee. Mr Parry: And the attention of the .House. Mr Coates: That is another matter. Replying to Mr Savage, Mr Speaker said that the House could not, under the Standing Orders, discuss the report while it was before the Select Committee. Mr Savage said that he objected to the course proposed by the Government. There should not be any shuffling. Mr Coates: I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that there is to be no shuffling about it. So far as I am concerned the report can be discussed here or anywhere else. Mr Coates added that the report could not be satisfactorily dealt with in the House until the Committee had taken evidence. For instance, evidence should be taken from representatives of the Audit and other Government Departments. The Hon. Sir Apirana Ngata said that he had very little to say regarding the proposals to have an inquiry into that portion of the report dealing with the Native Department. Labour members: That is not the only portion we are concerned about. Minister’s Offer. Sir Apirana Ngata said that when the report had been tabled he had addressed a letter to the AuditorGeneral inviting the fullest inquiry into the circumstances to which the report re.orred. “At the same time,” he said, “I placed my resignation verbally in the hands of the Prime Minister. However. I did not want it to appear that I was running away from any responsibility or from any investigation. I felt that my presence in the Ministry might be an embarrassment to my colleagues at this juncture. Whatever form of investigation may be decided upon, I can assure the House that I shall welcome it.” The Minister said that he wanted to assure members that he and the Maori members of the House and the Native officers who permeated the Department had put their shoulders to the wheel during the last four or five years to undertake a tremendous job, and he could not help feeling that the present happening had taken place because the whole Maori race was under suspicion of being incapable of adjusting themselves to the business conditions imposed by the times. The Native Department in its various branches was under suspicion, particularly the officers entrusted with the developmental work, and he asked that j the methods adopted and the whole of the circumstances and basic features of the Native problem should have a good all round review. It was possible that in members’ just concern for purity in administration that all sorts of misunderstandings might arise. Full Inquiry Courted. “I court nothing better than the full and balanced judgment of the whole of the circumstances,” said Sir Apirana. “So far as I am concerned I am not one who hankers for office, and it is immaterial to me whether I am outside the Government or not, but durb'T the time I have been in Parliamen the whole of my heart has been devoted to the interests of my people." The Minister resumed his seat amidst applause. Mr Forbes said that when the Audi tor-General’s report had been made known, the Minister in Charge of Native Affairs had immediately waited on him and expressed his willingness to resign his portfolio. He had pointed out to Sir Apirana Ngata that until there had been an investigation and until it had been shown that the Native Minister himself was to blame, it would not be the fair and right thing to accept the resignation because such a course would be tantamount to prejudging the case. It would mean that the Minister would be taking the j penalty before the investigation was j carried out. A Short Staff. The Prime Minister added that the whole matter would be investigated, and after that it could be decided what course should be taken. He knew the conditions under which the Minister had been working for so long. In his j endeavour to keep down expenses the Minister had run his Department with as small a staff as possible. It might be that owing to the smallness of the staff there had not been complete supervision, but he would not judge the case until it had been fully investigated. The Native Department had not only to carry out the development schemes but had also to deal with the difficult problem of Maori unemployment, and the whole of those activities had been carried out with practically no increase of staff. “I want to say,” Mr Forbes declared “that the members of the Cabinet have highest regard for the integrity, honesty and straightforwardness of the Native Minister. Whether he has been wise or unwise in endeavouring to carry out the Department’s activities without increasing the staff is a matter which will be revealed when the inquiry takes place.” Mr Savage: How can the Public Accounts Committee investigate all matters connected with the AuditorGeneral’s report in a few days? Mr Forbes said the Auditor-General would appear before the Committee and the Committee could then recommend what form of Investigation should be adopted. Parliament’s* Responsibility. Mr Savage said that Parliament had i a responsibility in the matter and j should face that responsibility at the earliest possible moment. The Committee would have absolutely no chance of investigating the report, the implications of which might Involve the life of the Government Itself. He was emphatically opposed to the re- I port going before the Committee at j Mr Coates said he agreed that j

Parliament had a responsibility in the matter, but it was also right that the other side of the question should be heard and understood. The Departments concerned had already prepared statements and the task of the Committee should not take any more than two days.

Mr P. Fraser (Labour. Wellington Central) said that the eyes of the whole country were on Parliament at the present time, and the honour of Parliament and the honour of the Government were at stake. He contended that the House was being asked to agree to a course that would result in the matter being shelved. There were more aspects concerned than the matters connected with the Native Affairs Department. What kind of consideration could the Public Accounts Committee give, to all these questions in the course of two or three days? Surely it was a matter for the Cabinet to decide whether there should be a Royal Commission or not. and surely it was for the Cabinet to face up to its responsibilities. What was wanted was a frank statement from the Prime Minister and not an attempt to belittle the situation. Mr E. T. Tirikatene (Ind., Southern Maori), said that on behalf of the people he represented he wanted a full and frank discussion of the whole matter. Mr R. A. Wright (Ind. Wellington subs.), said that he agreed with Mr Fraser that it was the duty of the Prime Minister to make a full and frank statement. Mr Parry said that he appreciated the frankness of the Native Minister, but the House wanted a free discussion of all sections of the report. Mr D. G. Sullivan tLab.. Avon), said that it was surely for Parliament to discuss the report and decide what action should be taken. Mr W. Nash (Lab., Hutt), asked whether the action proposed was bad from the Parliamentary and constitutional point of view. Would it not result in nullifying the AuditorGenerals report?

The Hon. W. Downie Stewart (C. Dunedin West) suggested that the matters under consideration might be referred to the House in the form of two motions, Native trust matter being separated from other matters dealing with accounts. Mr H. Atmore tlnd.. Nelson), sain that he hoped the Government would withdraw the motion to send the report to the committee. He trusted that there would be no attempt to delay an open inquiry which the public of New Zealand would demand. Mr Forbes said that the Government's object in wanting to refer the report to the Committee was that the matter could be thoroughly discussed. There was a precedent for. the Government’s action, because he remembered being a member of a special committee set up some time ago, to consider the Auditor-General's report. Mr Nash: Was that not a question of keeping accounts? Mr Forbes: No it was a question of of alleged irregularities in Government departments and these charges were investigated by the committee. Form of the Investigation. Continuing, Mr Forbes said that it would be for the Committee to decide whether the Auditor-General's proposal that the investigation be carried out by the Audit Department, was the right one or whether the task should be taken over by a Royal Commission. It could not be said that the Government was endeavouring in any way to protect itself. Surely it would be better to have all the evidence placed before the Committee than to have an incomplete knowledge of the situation. He would see to it that Parliament, had an adequate opportunity of discussing the report when it came back from the Committee. The Government's motion to postpone the Orders of the Day in order to take the Auditor-General's report was carried by 38 votes to 24, Messrs R. A. Wright," A. J. Stallworthy. H. M. Rushworth and H. Atmore voting with the Opposition. Mr Coates then moved that the report be referred to the Public Accounts Committee, with a direction to the Committee to report to the House not later than Thursday afternoon. He said that certain legislation would be necesary to deal with the questions arising out of the criticism of the administration of the Native land settlement scheme, and that legislation would be referred to the Committee for its opinion. The motion was adopted.