Report on Samoa Again Discussed

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 760, 5 September 1929, Page 7

Report on Samoa Again Discussed

MOTION WITHDRAWN CRITICISM IN COUNCIL (THE SUN’S Parliamentary Reporter) WELLINGTON, Wednesday. Principles with regard to New Zealand’s administration of the mandate of Samoa were discussed in the Legislative Council today, when the debate was resumed on the motion of Sir Francis Bell regretting certain of the recommendations contained in the recent report on Western Samoa by Government officials. The motion was withdrawn. The motion before the Council was as follows: —“That the Council regrets that certain of the recommendations contained in the recent report on the Civil Service and finance of Samoa should have been made without due regard to the principles which have been hitherto observed in the performance of the duties undertaken by the Dominion when accepting the mandate for Western Samoa.”

The Leader of the Council, the Hon. T. K. Sidey, said he wanted to show that there was another side to the question. Sir Francis Bell had said he did not wish to attack the officers who had reported, but Mr. Sidey submitted that the charges could only be construed in that way. Sir Francis Bell’s speech was one of the most extraordinary he had heard, for the officers criticised had been appointed by the Reform Government, of which Sir Francis Bell was a member. HORNS OF A DILEMMA

Mr. Sidey asked what more competent officers could have been found for the purpose than the Public Service Commissioner and the second in command of the Treasury, while It was only natural that the third member should have been the secretary of the External Affairs Department. The recommendations had been generally endorsed by the Administrator, who also had been appointed by the late Government. Sir Francis Bell, then, was on the horns of a dilemma—either he must accept the recommendations, or condemn the Government of which he had been a member. The recommendations of the committee must be regarded iu the light of the trouble existing in Samoa. He contended that the members of the committee had acted with the best intentions and could not be blamed if in some respects they had shown lack of judgment. Complaint had been made of the military spirit of the administration in Samoa, but how else were natives to be dealt with when they refused to pay their taxes? Conditions iu Samoa were entirely different from normal conditions people were accustomed to iu Neiy Zealand, and had to be viewed in that light. BALANCING THE BUDGET

In regard to one main point of Sir Francis Bell’s criticism, the recommendation that the Samoan budget should be balanced without aid from New Zealand, Mr. Sidey pointed out that Mr. Coates had instructed the officials before they left, if possible, to eliminate or reduce the financial calls by Samoa on the New Zealand taxpayer. Mr. Sidey said he had been wondering what would have been Sir Francis Bell’s attitude to the report if the late Government had remained In office. Sir Francis Bell: It would not have been published.

Mr. Sidey said Sir Francis Bell could not have taken up the same position in the Council without being disloyal to the Administration of which he was a member.

In reply, Sir Francis Bell asked leave to withdraw the motion. He expressed disappointment at Mr. Sidey’s reply on certain matters, and said he had meant in his motion that certain of the recommendations in the report were inconsistent with New Zealand’s duty under the mandate. He had not been convinced that Mr. Sidey did not entirely agree with him in that view; in fact, he believed he did agree, although it was difficult for him to say so. Sir Francis Bell said he had not attacked the integrity of the officers, but only their ignorance of the duty New Zealand had undertaken as mandatory, and their ignorance of tropical conditions.