NATIVE AFFAIRS

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 77, Issue 148, 26 June 1934, Page 6

NATIVE AFFAIRS

CONTROL OF THE STAFF EVIDENCE BETORE COMMISSION QUESTIONS ABOUT MINISTER £ Per Press Association. J WELLINGTON, June 25. Evidence on the staffing arrangements in the Native Affairs Department was given by Mr P. Verschaffelt, Public Service Commissioner, to-day before the Native Affairs Commission. He was lengthily examined by the Commission on an interview he had with Sir Apirana Ngata, in which the Minister had stated that he might have to consider his position with the Government, and, when asked for an explanation of the Minister’s- attitude, Mr Verschaffelt said that the question at issue involved the control of the head office. Mr P. Barry, a fonner farm supervisor, also gave evidence, in which he explained that he had been dismissed from the department on the instructions of the Minister after he had refused to authorise the payment of an account submitted by Princess Te Puca. Mr. Verschaffelt said that he had been prepared to go further even than the Minister had asked, and no request for extra staff had been refused. Mr. Verschaffelt undertook to submit a detailed statement with regarding to the staffing. Witness considered that Sir Apirana Ngata had not been excessive in his requests. He could not remember having any difficulty with him with regard to the numerical staff.

A New Department. Mr John 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, and £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 a large 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. Mr Justice Smith referred witness to 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 Ihe Minister might have to consider his position with the Government. “What was it that you put before him as necessary at the time he 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 polity of the Government the Minister would have to consider his position. His Honour: There was some important issue raised as J e result of which he said to you that he would consider his position, did he not? Witless: Yes. His Honour: 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? Witness: Jf the requirements of the Treasury and Audit Department were to be carried out then my recollection was that it would be impossible to carry out development schemes. His Honour: Was the personnel involved in it. too? Witness: Yes. I suggested that the position could be made to meet the Treasury and Audit Department requirements if there was a change of personnel. His Honour: Was the issue that his office should cease to be the head office? Witness: That was involved in it. His Honour: What was the issue in the Native Minister’s mind in regard to the personnel? Witness: I suggested to him that there would have to be a change in head office; that Judge Jones would have to be retired and someone would have to succeed Mr Shepherd. His Honour: Did that enter into it? Witness: It was part of it. His Honour: Did he want to keep Judge Jones? Witness: I could not sav that. His Honour: He must have been resisting something that you were putting forward in regard to the personnel. and I want to know what it was.

The Changes Specified Witness: I had suggested that Mr Pearce should take charge of head office aft airs. That meant superseding Mr Shepherd. His Honour: That, evidently, was an- ' Other thing, too? Witness: Evidently. His Honour: It was really control of head office and whether head, office should be moved from the Minister’s office to that of the Under-Secretary? Witness: That is what it involved. Mr Findlay: The Native Minister’s resistance to the change was a resistance founded on what he felt was a belief that if the changes were effected the development schemes could not be carried out satisfactorily? Witness: I think so. Mr Findlay: There was nothing personal ? Witness: He stated he had no grievance as far as the Treasury and myself were concerned, but his main difficulty was with the Audit Department. Mr Findlay; He was not prepared to carry things along, as he deemed, 4 ‘shackled Mr Johnston (a member of the Commission): There was no reason why the audit requirements should not be complied with? Witness: I don’t think so. In reply to His Honour, witness said that he did not think there was anvbody 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. An Inspector Sacked P. Barry, farm inspector for the National Bank of New Zealand and

formerly farm director and land inspector in the Nati'v Department, said his duties were to auptivise and direct development operat tas in connection with native land settlement attend to all purchases of wh-at wu> required, such as seeds, manures, implements, buildings and stock. He carried out the woik connected with the schemes known as the Waipipi and Kaihau and also reported on schemes in other parts of the Dominion. The Waikato natives had suggested the development of the Waipipi block. His original estimate was £l.’-uU for each holding, to carry 27 to 30 <o»vs, with suitable residence and outbuildings. “I was able lu complete the work at about £7OO u bolding/’ he said. “These no'dings were good payable propositions at that price, and a man, his wife and family could make a living even at the present price of uutteriat. The method < 1 development at Waipipi E.ad Kaihau was tn© employment of native.-: under my supervision. I found 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 the Princess te Puca. Local owners and local natives were to be employed where possible. All the wages were paid to Fiincess te Puea, who, in turn, was to distribute the money among ’the workers and pay store accounts. Arrangements for the employment of labour eventually led to a conflict, because I desired to carry out the work on sound business linos, having an ultimate result in view. Princess te i’uca, on the other hand, wanted to get an immediate living for as many natives as possible, whether they were required or not. She complained to the Minister because I would not fall in with her views, bn Sunday, July 27, 193 b, the Minister, at Waipipi, discussea 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 Puca had been complaining she could not get what she required from me and he said that if she did not get what she wanted ne would sack me. This was said in her presence. I asked the Minister to point out where I had done anything wrong. He did not reply.” Witness said 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 woik carried out under strict and capable supervision by a practical man. While at Waipipi he had found store accounts not paid. When he complained to Princess ie Puea she had said she 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 various officers that unless the natives were allowed a good deal of their own way the officer responsible would be removed,” witness proceeded. 4 f This actually happened in the case of Inspector Guthrie. The circumstances of my removal were well known and had a bad effect both in the office control and on the natives.” Barry continued that he was endeavouring to carry out schemes on sound, commercial lines. No one who was not working was on the pay sheet. To Mr. Findlay, witness said that he understood from the first that ho. was working with communal labour and that it was an experiment. Mr. Findlay: You knew that Princess te Puea was working with a team, a tribe; that certain individuals were on wages but all worked, that sometimes as manv as 50 worked? Witness denied that that was so. The number working varied from 8 to 14. To further questions witness said that he had refused to supply the clothes and extra food requested by Princess te Puia. Witness was trying to run the scheme on a proper basis and told Princess te Puea that if she wanted those things she should apply to the Welfare Department. Witness did npt desire to run the scheme so that the property should become overloaded financially. He had always regarded the matter from the finance viewpoint. He always had in view that the land would be taken up and the cost of development borne by the owners.

Reason for Dismissal Mr Verschaffelt, recalled, said that Barry's dismissal had nothing to do with Sir Apirana Ngata. He had received instructions from the Native Department that the work on which Barry was engaged had been completed and recommending that he be trans-

ferred to another department. He had conferred with the Lands Department and the Agricultural Department, but neither required Barry’s services and he had no option but to give him notice. Had Barry’s services with the Lands Department boon satisfactory, witness would have insisted oil Barry going back to that department. Mr Ongley said that he refused that statement. The fact that Barry Lad been promoted since the allegations made against him showed that there was nothing in them. Evidence /as given by George Patrick Shepherd, chief clerk of the Native Department, regarding the land development policy. Witness, “I do not think I should express an opinion as to whether or not it was wise to embark upon as many as 42 schemes almost simultaneously,” said witness. “On the one hand the need of the Maori people was urgent, and on the other hand there was neither organisation nor adequate staff to cope with such rapidly expanding activity. ’The total annual expenditure of the Department, consequent upon the new policy, increased from say £50,000 per annum before the development to over £300,000 each year since the development commenced. The department was under the control o" Chief Judge Jones, as Under-Secretary, to whom I was obliged to refer any proposals for increased staff and accommodation. In May, 1930, it was (as I will show) 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 the new schemes.” Mr. Shepherd was still giving evidence when an adjournment until tomorrow was taken.