LACK OF CONTROL

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXVIII, Issue 19946, 2 November 1934, Page 6

LACK OF CONTROL

CRITICISM OF NATIVE MINISTER

ACCOUNTING FOR FUNDS WELLINGTON. October 31. The policy of the State development schemes and the position of the Native Minister, Sir Apirana Ngat-a, are exhaustively dealt with in the report of the Native Affairs Commission. “The Minister, although a member of a tribe,” states the report, “was as a Minister of the Crown bound to refrain from using State funds without lawful authority in the interests of his tribe. He was also bound to restrain himself and to restrain the leaders of other tribes who assisted him from adopting methods which meant a lack of control over State funds and stores. We regret to say that the Native Minister failed not infrequently in these matters. Again the Minister’s loyalty to the tribal methods of approach and support caused him difficulty when a difference arose between a Native leader and a European supervisor. In our view the Minister supported the Native leader whether he or she was right or wrong. “While the schemes may appear to be only schemes for developing land and granting farming assistance which might be applied equally to European and Maori, they are from the Maori point of view a part, though a very substantial part, of a movement to create a new life and culture for the members of the Maori tribes. It is essential to appreciate this underlying policy in order to understand the methods adopted by the Native Minister and his personal position in relation to the establishment and working of the schemes. “Much Irregularity.” “The Minister disregarded the ordinary channels of communication with the supervisors and Native officers. We think that the Minister’s assistance was necessary in making the preliminary surveys of many of the schemes, in securing the co-operation of the Native leaders and workmen, in inspiring them in their work, in consulting with the Field Supervisors and Native officers. In these respects direct communication between the Minister and the persons in the field was natural and desirable. But we cannot accept the view that authority to expend State funds or to adopt courses of action which involved the expenditure of State funds, whether in relation to development, or farming, or the purchase of stock or land, should have been given orally by the Minister without regard to the proper channels of communication. If, in special circumstances, it was necessary for him to give on the spot an. oral authority for expenditure, or an instruction which involved expenditure, it should have been forthwith recorded and transmitted through the proper departmental channels. Yet, so little was this done that schemes were frequently started of which head office knew nothing until the accounts sections had received an account to be charged against such schemes. This observation applies particularly to the Waiariki district, but there was also much irregularity of this kind in the Tairawhitl and Waikato districts.

“Although the Minister proposed in April, 1930, that a Native Land Settlement branch cf head office should be set up, and although it did exist under the chief clerk, Mr Shepherd, this branch was never more than a pale shadow of the Minister. It was never permitted to operate as a departmental branch subject to proper departmental check without interference from the Minister, or to be a proper departmental channel through which the Minister’s instructions went to subordinate officers as a matter of course. The attitude of the Minister to the department, revealed by letters, was such as to render regular departmental administration impossible. “Influenced by his method of approach, by his success in the field, and by his enthusiam, the Minister launched scheme upon scheme without any reasonable regard, as a Minister of the Crown, to the need for properly accounting for State funds. He was in a hurry long before the unemployment situation became pressing in the late autumn of 1931. Our examination of the Audit complaints will show our view of his responsibility in this matter. In his evidence the Minister admitted that the requirements of Audit and Treasury were being complied with to-day, and he said: ‘At the start if we had had about one-third of the schemes, the whole thing would have been quite all right.’ The crux of the position lies here, and we may state our conclusion at once. We agree that a Native land development administration must be sympathetic, patient, and friendly, but we are clear that no such administration support by the funds of the State is justified which fails to ensure as part of the process of development (1) proper accounting for Government moneys and stores; and (2) administration which is subject to proper departmental check and which is of such a kind that it may be carried on by successive Governments. “The Minister established an administration which did not reasonably meet these needs, and if that administration had not been reorganised in December, 1933, its position would have become so confused that a responsible Minister would not have been justified in seeking further aid from State funds. That would have meant the loss of the development schemes and the money already spent. Poor Accounting. “We deal in another part of our report with the poor accounting methods of the department. In many cases Native units had not received, at the time of our inquiry, a statement of their indebtedness for considerable periods, even for as long as two years. They are much concerned that they have been unable to find out their liability to the Government. This state of affairs should be brought to an end as soon as possible. “The position with regard to the charge to secure expenditure on land under development is at present in a serious and unsatisfactory position. “Where development scheme lands have been gazetted and, as such, have become subject to a charge for expenditure, a later notice has been gazetted which has purported to remove or cancel the former notice. This procedure has been freely practised. There is no authority for it in Section 522, and we think it clear that Section 25 (h) of the Acts Interpretation Act, 1924, does not apply. If the practice is a convenient one, then, as the validity of a charge for State funds is involved, we think that legislation should be enacted to provide proper safeguards. Surveys Not Sufficient. “We are satisfied that, even apart from the unemployment situation, the method of consolidation of titles will not meet the present situation under the development schemes. Where consolidation can be completed without a delay which would be unfair to a unit of proved capacity to farm his land under supervision, the title should be put in order by that process. No surveys sufficient for the purposes of the Land Transfer Act have been made of any of the unit areas on the development schemes. It would appear to be necessary to make provision for this. It would then be necessary, as sug-

gested to us by the Chief Judge, to create a provisional or special register for the leases. The Native Minister has told us that the Natives were definitely told at the commencement of the development schemes that they were risking land, and that there never was any question of 'writingoff.’ We find, however, that in certain cases unsuitable areas have been selected for development operations; that in some cases there has been mismanagement; and that in other cases poor results have been obtained having regard to the money expended—and this notwithstanding the reduction of development costs chargeable to units by the expenditure of unemployment moneys. It may be found that, in consequence, some ‘writing-down’ of the liabilities against various lands will be equitable and necessary.”