Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

PARLIAMENT

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE'S REPORT ON SAMOAN PETITION. NO RECOMMENDATION MADE. Wellington, Dec. 3. The joint committee on the Samoan petition reported to the House of Representatives this afternoon that in view of the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into Samoan affairs it had no recommendation to make. Mr. E. J. Howard (Christchurch East), alter discussing various aspects of Samoan problems, expressed the opinion that the troubles there could not be cured with a big stick. Mr. H. G. R. Mason (Eden) said the Samoan petition had askecP for an inquiry into Samoan affairs and great pains had been taken to prevent people from thinking the Commission was appointed as a result of that petition. He regretted that the Government had not made this concession earlier and so saved a great deal of unnecessary expense. Mr. M. J. Savage (Auckland West) said that at one time the Administrator was against a Royal Commission and it looked as if the Government had something to hide. They would now have no opportunity of discussing the report of the Commission this sesion, and by next session all interest in the mntter would have disappeared. He supposed that was one of the tricks of the trade. To be fair, he thought the Government should pay Mr. Nelson's expenses, because they were inquiring into Samoan affairs, not merely into Mr. Nelson’s affairs. He also regretted that the Government, having set up a committee, did not complete the business and prosecute an exhaustive inquiry. The Leader of the Opposition said he could not understand why the evidence taken before the committee was not heing placed before members It should he printed and becomee a State document. The Royal Commission should have been set up and done its business in Samoa and then reported to this session of Parliament. Mr. Nelson’s examination before the committtee had been most severe and exhaustive, but he came through it absolutely unshaken. That examination brought out most extraordinary levelations, and he hoped that on the strength of those revela tions the Government would recall the Administrator. Ee had no doubt General Richardson was a well-inten-tioned man and wanted to do the right thing, hut he did not know howto do it. He was temperamentally unfitted for the post and seemed to think that military rule was the way to govern Samoa. It was not, and in that General Richardson had failed to understand Samoan character.

MINISTER’S REPLY. The Hon. TV. Nosworthv said it was true General Richardson did not at one period favour a Royal Commission, but when he found how he had been misrepresented he changed his mind and wanted the fullest inquiry. For that purpose it was more convenient to take the evidence on the spot in Samoa, rather than' bring witnesses to New Zealand. So far as the evidence heard by the Parliamentary committee was concerned, it was for the most part hearsay evidence and was of less value than the testimony given before the Royal Commission, which would be printed and circulated among members. With regard to the payment of Mr. Nelson’s expenses, he saw no reason why the Government should pay those expenses. He came to New- Zealand at his own volition. Mr, T. P. Lee (Oatnaru), in reply, said it would be unfair to circulate the evidence heard before the committee before the Commission's report was available, because it was merely Mr. Nelson's evidence and was only a partial statement. He invited the Leader of the Opposition when he received the evidence of the Roval Commission to compare the charges made by Mr. Nelson before the committee with those made before the Commission. and see whether he stood up to his first allegations against the Administrator. He referred to Mr. Smyth, who. when in New Zealand, had made charges against the Administrator. hut when before the Commission in Samoa he was asked what were his charges against the Samoan Government he said he could not remember. He asked Mr. Holland to say whether, if the Commission reported that things were better in Samoa <iw '.ban they formerly if the C'mmissirn reported that draswere, would he accept that assurance: tic steps were necessary, there would be support for the Government in taking those steps; if the Commission said that other causes. and not Genera'. Richardson, was the source of the trouble in Samoa, would he accept that assurancv' Personally he would wait with interest for the report of the Royal Commission. The report was adopted.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/HBTRIB19271205.2.43

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XVII, 5 December 1927, Page 6

Word count
Tapeke kupu
752

PARLIAMENT Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XVII, 5 December 1927, Page 6

PARLIAMENT Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XVII, 5 December 1927, Page 6

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert