Report on Samoa Sharply Criticised

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 755, 30 August 1929, Page 6

Report on Samoa Sharply Criticised

OFFICIALS DEFENDED SIR FRANCIS BELL’S SPEECH | (THE St'VS Parliamentary Reporter) PARLIAMENT BLDGS., Thursday. Asserting that those responsible for the report on the administration staff of Western Samoa had shown iudicrous lack of knowledge. Sir Farncis Beil today, in the Legislative Council, delivered a sharp criticism of the report. The report was prepared by Mr. P. D. N. Verschaffelt, Public Service Commissioner. Mr. A. D. Park, Assistant Secretary to the Treasury, and Mr. C. A. Berendsen, Secretary to the Department of External Affairs. Sir Francis moved: —“That the Council regrets that certain recommendations in the recent report on the Civil Service and finances of Samoa should have been made without due regard to the principles which have hitherto been observed in the performance of the duties undertaken by the Dominion when accepting the mandate for Western Samoa." Sir Francis Bell said there was only one commendation in the report, and that was the reference to the post office. Everything else pertaining to the administration was condemned. Was it possible that, under Sir George Richardson, there should have been created such a state of affairs in a few years? Sir Francis thought that the three gentlemen who had framed the report never supposed it would ever be published. What was manifest was that they understood at first that Mr. Coates wanted it for his own purposes. COMPETENT TO SPEAK Sir Francis Bell said that for three years up to the Mau outbreak he was responsible for the administration of Samoa. During that time he had come into contact both personally and through correspondence with the high officials of the Administration. He was therefore surely competent to express an opinion upon that service better than the three men who, in three or four weeks, took upon themselves to investigate the whole position. Those officials in Samoa were loyal and devoted public servants. “I sincerely hope that thos Civil servants who have been maligned in this report will accept the statement of a man who has accepted the responsibility as against thos© who, without experience and knowledge, have criticised and commented in a manner which to me seems most unfair, unless it was intended only as the expression of their opinion to the Ministry in confidence,” said Sir Francis. “I cannot speak without saying that they are entitled to hear what the Minister has to say, and to have an indignant denial of several of the accusations that have been made against them.” WANT OF KNOWLEDGE Sir Francis Bell went on to defend Colonel Hutcheu, and said that if he (Sir Francis Bell) seemed indignant, it was because he felt indignant when such imputations as were contained in the report, and such unfair statements, should be made against a man who had given his life to the service of New Zealand. Sir Francis dealt with the report in detail, and said the incompetence and w-ant of knowledge on the part of the three gentlemen concerned was ludicrous. Sir Francis said the amount granted annually to Samoa by New Zealand had never exceeded £20,000, except in one year, when it was £22,000. The report would lead one to suppose that an enormous amount had been provided. The work that had been done in Samoa would have been impossible except for financial assistance front New Zealand.

Sir James Allen, who seconded the motion, asked the Attorney-General, the Hon. T. K. Sidey, to consider whether it was possible to write off all the money which had been advanced to Samoa. The debate was adjourned.