NATIVE AFFAIRS

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXVII, Issue 19835, 26 June 1934, Page 5

NATIVE AFFAIRS

COMMISSION OF INQUIRY SOME INTERESTING EVIDENCE By Telegraph—Press Association WELLINGTON, Julie 25. Evidence on the staffing arrangements in the Native Affairs Department was given by Mr Paul Verschaffelt, Public Service Commissioner, before the Native Affairs Commission. Witness said that an Economy Committee had been set up to go into the administration of the Native Department and extra staff had been given at different times. He would prepare a memorandum giving details regarding staff appointments. He would have given the Native Minister more assistance than what he required. He always regarded Sir Apirana Ngata as being on the economic side rather than on the other side. Witness considered that Sir Aparana Ngata had not been excessive in his requests. He could not remember having any difficulty with Sir Apirana with regard to the staff. Mr Alexander (a member of the Commission) pointed out that the expenditure in the Native Department increased from £6561 in 1930 to £87,000 in 1931. £248.000 in 1931-32 and £245,000 in 1932-33. He inquired whether these moneys were connected with practically a new department of State. Witness: Practically. Mr Alexander: You mean to allege a commercial and stock and station agency department which, in effect, had not hitherto existed? Witness: Yes, steps were taken to utilise the existing organisation and increase the staff where required. Mr Alexander: Did you know that this very large increase in finance was taking place? Witness: Yes, I knew. Minister’s Threat. Mr Justice Smith referred witness oo a letter he had written to the Prime Minister in which he (witness) had stated that Sir Apirana Ngata had said, following an interview between witness and the Native Minister, that the Minister might have to consider his position with the Government. •‘What was it that you put before him as necessary at the time that ho threatened his resignation from the Government?” asked his Honour. Mr Verschaffelt: “I don’t know that one can exactly say he threatened his resignation.” Witness added that the suggestion in his mind was that if the views put forward were to be the policy of the Government, the Minister would have to consider his position. His Honour: There was some imporaant issue raised as a result of which he said he would consider his position? —Yes. State what were the issues that raised the question of his position with the Government. What were the issues raised in the Native Minister’s mind? —lf the requirements of the Treasury and the Audit Departments were to be carried out, then my recollection was that it would be impossible to carry out the development schemes. Was the personnel involved in it too? —Yes. I suggested that the position could be made to meet Treasury and Audit requirements if there was a change of personnel. An Issue Resisted. Was the issue that his office should cease to be the head office?—That was involved in it. What was the issue in the Native Minister’s mind in regard to person - nel? —I suggested to him that there would have to be a change in the head office; that Judge Jones would have to be retired and someone would have to succeed Mr Shepherd. Did that enter into it?—lt was part of it. Did he want to keep Judge Jones? I could not say that. He must have been resisting something that you were putting forward in regard to the personnel, and I want to know what it was?—l had suggested that Mr Pearce should take charge of affairs at the head office. That meant superseding Mr Shepherd. That evidently was another thing too?—Evidently. It was'really the control of the head office and whether the head office should be moved from the Minister’s office to the Under-Secretary?—That is what is involved. Mr Finlay: The Native Minister's resistance to the change was resistance founded on what he felt was a belief that if changes were effected the development schemes could not be carried out satisfactorily? Witness: I thing so. There was nothing personal?—He stated that he had no grievance so far as the Treasury and myself were concerned, but his main difficulty was with the Audit Department. He was not prepared to carry things along as he deemed “shackled”?—No. Mr Johnston (a member of the Commission) : There is no reason why the audit requirements should not be complied with?—l don’t think so. In reply to his Honour, witness said that he did not think there was anybody who had the same personal influence as the Minister necessary to carry out the schemes. His Honour: What you really mean is that both Sir Apirana’s influence and the audit requirements could be combined. Former Supervisor’s Evidence. Mr P. Barry, farm inspector for the National Bank of New Zealand and formerly farm director and land inspector in the Native Department, said his duties were to supervise direct development operations in connection with the native land settlement and attend to all purchases such as seeds, manures, implements, buildings and stock. He carried out the work in connection with the schemes known as Waipipi and Kaihau and also reported on schemes in other parts of the Dominion. The Waikato natives suggested the development of the Waipipi block. His original estimate was £I2OO for each holding to carry 27 to 30 cows, with a suitable residence and outbuildings. “I was able to complete the work at about £7OO a holding. These holdings are good payable propositions at that price, and a man, his wife and family could make a living even at the present price of butter-fat. The method of development at Waipipi and Kaihau was the employment of natives under my supervision. I found that they worked satisfactorily and learned the use of implements reasonably well. I was instructed by the Department that where labour was required I was to apply to Princess Te Puea. Local owners and local natives were to be employed where possible. All wages were paid to Princess Te Puea, who in turn was to distribute the money among the workers and pay the store accounts. “ Sacked.” “The arrangements for the employment of labour eventually led to conflict because I desired to carry out the wortefr; on sound business lines, having

the ultimate result in view. Princess Te Puea, on the other hand, wanted to get an immediate living for as many natives as possible, whether they w r ere required or not. She complained to the Minister because I would not fall in with her views. On Sunday, July 27, 1930, the Minister, at Waipipi, discussed various settlement matters with me. The discussion was at the home of Princess Te Puea, and she was present during the discussion. The Minister said that Princess Te Puea had been complaining that she could not get what she required from me. and he said that if she did not get what she wanted he would sack me. This was said in her presence. I asked the Minister to point out where I had done anything wrong, but he did not reply.” Witness said that his authority was undermined, and following a further dispute over money he was sacked. His opinion was that native land development could be carried out successfully only if land of good quality was selected and the work carried out under strict and capable supervision by a practical man. While at Waipipi he found that store accounts had not been paid. When he complained to Princess Te Puea she said she had used the money for electioneering purposes and had none left. “During the time of my employment on native development work there was an undercurrent of fear among the various officers that unless the natives were allowed af good deal of their own way the officer responsible would be removed. This actually happened in the case of Inspector Guthrie. The circumstances of my removal were w r ell known and had a bad effect both in the office control and on the natives.” Mr Barry continued that he had endeavoured to carry out the schemes on sound commercial lines. No one who was not working was on the paysheet. Dismissal Denied. Mr Verschaffelt, recalled, said that Mr Barry’s dismissal had nothing to do with Sir Apirana Ngata. He had received instructions from the Native Department that the work on which Mr Barry was engaged had been completed and recommending that he be transferred to another department. He had conferred with the Lands Department and the Agricultural Department but neither required Mr Barry’s services and he had no option but to give him notice. Had his service with the Lands Department been satisfactory witness would have insisted on Mr Barry going back to that department. Mr Ongley said that he refuted that statement. The fact that Mr Barry had been promoted since the allegations made against him showed that there was nothing in them. Without Authority. Evidence was given by Mr George Patrick Shepherd, chief clerk of the Native Department, regarding the land development policy. “I do not think C should express an opinion as to whether or not it was wise to embark apon as many as 42 schemes almost simultaneously,” he said. “On the one fiand the need of the Maori people was urgent, and on the other hand there was neither the organisation nor an adequate staff to cope with such a rapidly expanding activity. The total annual expenditure of the department consequent upon the new policy increased from say £50,000 per annum before development to over £300,000 each year since development commenced. The department was under the control of Chief Judge Jones as Under-Secre-tary, to whom I was obliged to refer any proposals for increased staff and accommodation. In May, 1930, it was (as I will show) the Cabinet’s intention that I should be appointed director of native land settlement, but the Commissioner consistently refused to make the appointment and I was never at any time clothed with any authority and had no power either to initiate, direct or control new schemes.”