ORAKEI LAND.

Auckland Star, Volume LXX, Issue 21, 26 January 1939, Page 13

ORAKEI LAND.

PURCHASE PRICE. DECISION GIVEN. COMMISSION'S FINDING. CROWlf'l CASE UPHELD. Decision in favour of the Crown has been given by Mr. Justice Kennedy, finyal Commissioner, who was appointed to inquire into grievance# alleged by Maoris with regard to land at Orakei, which i« now in the hands of the (lovcrnment. The question* submitted to the commission concerning the church site, the commissioner stated, were whether the Crown should liave abstained from purchasing, whether the price paid was fnir and reasonable, whether the purchase money has been applied by the chut cli authorities as by law required, and whether the natives occupying have any valid reason for refusing to vacate and give the Crown possession of the J»i'd. The commissioner 1* of opinion that there was no reason why the Crown should have abstained from purchasing that the price paid by the Crawn wa* fair and reasonable, and that the proceeds of the sale have been applied as required by law. As to the natives' continued occupation, the commissioner states that no reason was brought to Ills notice why the natives should remain in possession. There is, in his view, good reason why they should cease to occupy the dwelling* on the land, and why the buildings should be demolished or removed. If the natives have another place to which they can go, they have no justification for continuing in occupation. On the other band, if no alternative accommodation ia available, the only justification i« necessity, and that will ceasa as soon «s accommodation can be found. Matter at Issue. Another matter at issue in connection with the Orakei purchase, dealt with by the Commission, was whether an agreement was made between the officials, or agents of the Crown, and Wiremu Watene Tautari, that he should be entitled at a future date to repurchase from the Crown an area of six or seven acre* of Orakei No. 2B Block, and if so, whether the conditions of repurchase "*d wen natisfled. The Commissioner summarises his conclusions thus: That at the time when the agent* for the Crown purchased the whole of Wiremu Watena's interest in Orakei No. 2B block, no reaervation of the six or seven acres made; that subsequent to the execution of the transfer and payment of part of the consideration moneys, the Crown's agent gave to Wiremu Watene an option in writing, exercisable within two or three years, to repurchase the area in question at coat to the Crown; that the option was never exercised within the stipulated time; that Wiremu Watene received payment for his interest in Orakei No. 2B upon the basis of there being no reservation; that Wiremu Watene by fcia solicitors, in 1922, long after the bption had expired, made application for the land; that the application was not accompanied by a tender of the purchase money or by an undertaking to tender the purchase money on his being required ao to do; and that, Anally, Wiremu Watene never became entitled during hia lifetime to a retransfer of the six or seven acres. Miniater'a Review. Commenting up on the finding generally, the acting-Minister of Native Affairs, the Hon. F. Langstone, said that, regarded in the light of an adjudication of tha/ dispute between the Crown and the natives, it waa in favour of the Crown. Tha Commiaaioner had recommended that payments by way of adjustment in the purchase price ahould be made to certain natives, and Cabinet had approved thia being done. Continuing, Mr. Langstone aaid: "It will be remembered that in recent years a good deal of publicity has been given to the claim of a section of the Maoris to certain lands at Orakei. The claim, which originally arose on petition to Parliament in 1028, briefly was that the Orakei No. 1 Reserve (or papakainga), containing about 40 acres, and an area of a little over four acres, known as the Church site, should be returned to. the natives. By purchase from the native owners for valuable consideration, the Crown during the years from 1914 to 1927 acquired the greater part of the Orakei No. 1 Reserve, which fronts Okahu Bay in tha Waitemata. The land referred to as the Church site, which is situated on the hiUtop at Orakei, waa in 1858 conveyed by the natives to the Crown to grant to the Church of England authorities as a site for a church, for a burial ground and for tbe endowment of a school in connection with the Church of Zngland. A Crown grant was issued to the Anglican bishop in 1859, but as tha land was no longer required for the original objects it was sold in 1028 by tha Church trustees to the Crown under statutory authority which provided for tha utilisation of the proceeds by the trustees for specific purposes. Tha natives have continued to reside on portions of the Orakei No. 1 Reserve subdivisions purchaaed by the Crown, and on the Church site, and have heen unwilling to vacate and give the Crown possession, alleging, in effect, that the Crown h&d no power or authority to purchase the reserve, and the Church trustees no power or right to dispose of the land granted to them. Neither the previoua Government nor the present one has seen its way clear to acknowledge tbe natives' claim. But to teat the merits of their case, and to ensure that no injustice would be done to them, tha Government decided that the matter ahould be thoroughly investigated by an authoritative tribunal." Seven Questioaa. Mr. Langstone added, "There were * seven questions concerning Orakei No. 1 Reserve which were submitted for the Commissioner's determination. In dealing with the question as to whether the Crown acquired a good title to the •übdivisions of the Orakei No. 1 Reserve, representing its purchases, the Commissioner in his report briefly traces the events leading to the purchase of the Orakei block, of which the reserve forms part. The report shows that tha Government in 1913, as a

measure of public policy, and in the KTth° n °1 Vl* City " i " terests ' wnder- £ rou £ h the medium of the Native Land Purchase Board, the purchase of hands " f preVent , them fa,li nP into the hands of private persons. The Comm ssmner finds that the Crown has acd ivfoSL " nd va,id tit,e to the subDuty of Board. "On an examination of the effect of the sales by the owners of the reserve, the Commissioner concludes that the duty imposed on the Native Land Purchase Board, by section 373 of the -Native Land Act, 1»09, to refrain from making a purchase from a native where the purchase was calculated to leave the native "landless," was not in cer-

tain instances discharged. None of the purchases made by the Crown, however were rendered invalid thereby. This matter has a bearing 011 the question as to whether there were any valid reasons why the Crown should have abstained from purchasing the interests ot these natives who were agreeable to sell and did sell their interests to the Crown. The Commissioner's finding is that the only valid reason against the purchase by the Crown was one at law, namely, that it woukl leave some of the natives landless. It is evident, however, that from the general tenor of the report there were a number of reasons in fact justifying the Crown's purchase." Sale of Interests.

u Mr. Langs tone said: — "T wo questions as to the purchase price jwiid to the natives for their interests were dealt with by the Commissioner. One was whether the prices paid were fair and reasonable, having regard to the value of the land at the date of purchase, and the other, whether the prices agreed to be paid had been duly paid. The Minister remarked that there had been no contention on the part of the natives that they had not received an adequate jtrjce for their interest*, but that the inclusion of the question in thw order of reference had arisen out of the Government's desire that no matter in relation to the purchase over which the natives might conceivably be aggrieved should remain uninvestigated. On the first point, the Commissioner concludes that of the thirty-six natives who sold interests in the land to the Crown, thirteen, in his view, did not receive fair and reasonable prices, considering the value of the land at the time of purchase. In one case where a building wu purchased separately and apart from the land, the price, in the opinion of the Commissioner, was less than it should have been by £100. Although the fourteen natives concerned are not legally entitled, the Commissioner has recommended that sums amounting in the aggregate to £445, be paid to them. There are also six cases in which buildings on the Crown areas, and belonging to natives who sold their landed interests to the Crown, have not been paid for, negotiations for their purchase generally having been deferred until the natives' claim by way of petition had been finally disposed of. The Commissioner finds, however, that the purchase money agreed to be paid to the native vendors was duly paid to them by the Crown. ITo Promise*. "As to the natives' right or justification for their continued occupation of the land acquired by the Crown, the report indicates that the only natives who have some justification are those who disposed of their landed interests to the Crown and who have not been paid for the houses owned by them and situated upon the Crown areas. Their ground for continued occupation will cease to exist on payment of the value of the houses being made to them. Except those persons, no native has any < right or justification for refusing to vacate the Crown land. The finding of the Commissioner on the question, whether any promises were made or held out by any official or agent of the Grown to the native vendors of any portion of the Orakei block, that in consideration of their selling their interests in the Orakei block elsewhere, than in the Orakei Xo. 1 Reserve the Crown would not purchase the Orakei No. 1 Reserve, and if any promises were made whether they were made with authority and whether the Crown was bound thereby either morally or legally, is that no such promises were made. The Minister said that this was a matter to which the Government attached considerable importance." With regard to the Church site, which was purchased, the Minister said that the legal issue between the natives on the one hand, and the Church trustees and the Crown on the other hand, as to ownership, had been cleared in the action which was heard in the Supreme Court in July of last year. In that case, the suppliant endeavoured to set up a prescriptive title to the land, but her claim failed. .