No Confidence.

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXVI, Issue 20455, 7 November 1934, Page 8

No Confidence.

Native Affairs .

Labour Launches Hot Attack. (“ Star ” Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, This Day. 'JMIOUGH there were many speakers yesterday, when the debate on the Labour no-confidence motion was opened in the House, there were still many members this morning who had not spoken, and as the Government had accepted Mr Savage’s motion regarding the Native land administration as a challenge and intended giving the fullest opportunity for debate, there is every indication of another long discussion. Yesterday Mr Savage asked the House to express “ its grave alarm at the irresponsible methods adopted in the administration of the Native Department, and its opinion that Cabinet had failed in its duty by not immediately accepting its collective responsibility to safeguard the public funds and the welfare of the Native race, when advised of the position by responsible officers of the Crown.” Mr Savage, Leader of the Opposition, had made a painstaking search through nearly 200 pages of the Royal Commission's report to substantiate his charge that the indictment was not of the Native Minister, but of the whole Government, which had long permitted a loose system, leading inevitably to irregularities. Labour Speakers. Labour speakers were in the majority during the discussion, all forcing home the point that the Government should take responsibility and resign. Sir Apirana Ngata found his defenders among European members, notably Mr Broadfoot (WaitomoL who spoke from forty-eight years’ experience of the Native land problem in his own district to give testimony to the valuable service of the ex-Minister in promoting the settlement of Native land, which was otherwise a menace to European farmers. lie also attacked the Commission on the ground that if failed to take full account of all the factors in the situation. .Mr Savage summarised his views as follows: (1) Cabinet Ministers have collective as well as individual responsibility in the control of all State departments. (2) The ex-Minister. with every good intention to help the Maori people, acted in an irresponsible manner in his oversight of Maori development schemes, purchase of lands and expenditure of public funds. (3) There was little or no co-operation between the Native Minister and kindred departments for which Cabinet Ministers have collective responsibility. (1) The report of the Commission provides abundant evidence of lack of co-operation between Cabinet Ministers in the administration of various departments of State. (5) The Native race have not received the treatment they were entitled to expect from the various Governments of the day in the matter of the develpoment of Native lands and other means of development. Government’s Responsibility. “ This report,” said Mr Savage. “is the most damning indictment that has ever been made against the administration of public affairs by any Government since self-government was first established in New Zealand. If under the present system of constitutional government the Government of the day is not to be held responsible for the administration of all departments of State, there can be no security for the public welfare. If the Government can escape the odium that must be attached to the bungling and mal-administration of a department of State by making a scapegoat of one of its number who happens to be in immediate control, the present system of government is doomed. Whatever way one looks at this unfortunate state of affairs it must be admitted that there is collective as well as individual responsibility resting with Ministers. No Co-operation. “ It is clear from the report of the Commission that there was little or no cooperation between departments of State. On March 10. 1932, the Controller and Auditor-General made a complaint to the Treasury that the Native Department did not co-operate with the Lands Department or Valuation Department in the matter of making land purchases. The Government either did not know of this or it failed to act upon the information that was available to it through various departments.” Mr Savage said that complaints concerning Maori land boards had been made by the Auditor-General as long as two years ago. and no notice had been taken of these complaints. “ Whatever may be said about this state of affairs, which we all regret, or about the Native Minister and his former colleagues in Cabinet, one would be safe in saying that the people of this country will be stirred by the revelations made by the Commission’s report, and will take the first opportunity to see that justice is done to the Native race,” said Mr Savage. ‘‘lt is well that the Maori people should be warned against those who will attempt to make them believe that they are being attacked, or that racial barriers are likely to stand between them and justice. That can never be. Whatever mistakes have been made in their name and in ours—and they have been many—Maori and pakeha must make up their minds to rise or fall together.” Mr Tau ITenare criticised the Commission as having a European bias, there being no Native to advise its members regarding the Maori outlook on problems. Allegations widened as the debate progressed, Mr Howard (Christchurch South) suggesting that the revelations in the report indicated general looseness of Ministerial control, which warranted investigation in other directions. Unemployment Fund expenditure, amounting to four and a half millions annually, was said not to be subject to Treasury check, and it was no use strongly condemning one Minister and letting off the other nine. Mr Semple on the Report.

A provocative interjection from Mr Smith (New Plymouth) produced a stronger outburst from Mr Semple (Wellington East). Some Government member had remarked that trade unionists embezzled funds. “ Some have done so,” said Mr Semple, “and they get into gaol. There are men mentioned in this report who ought to be in gaol. The whole thing ought to be handed over to the police right now. If anyone reads the report and fails to find there potential criminals, then I never met any in my life.”

The Prime Minister, answering questions about business, said further consideration of the Agricultural Emergency Bill all depended on the completion of the Native debate, which would be given ample time. He suggested Thursday for the resumption of ordinary business.