Maori Land Law And The Waitangi Treaty

Press, Volume CVIII, Issue 31580, 18 January 1968, Page 8

Maori Land Law And The Waitangi Treaty

Renewed complaints against the Maori Affairs Amendment Act of 1967 should not obscure the fact that the legislation was conceived as a measure to remove long-standing grievances over Maori land law. Nor should they create the impression that the changes in the law were widely opposed when they were first put to the Maori people. The Act was the outcome of a report prepared in 1965 by a former Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court (Mr Ivor Prichard) and a special titles officer of the Department of Maori Affairs (Mr Hemi Tono Waetford). Working as a committee of inquiry and after travelling to meetings with Maoris in all parts of New Zealand they said: “ To say that the response “ for submissions was as good as we expected would “be an understatement; there has been a flood of “ them in writing and more people than could “ possibly have been foreseen have made certain “that we knew their views”. They reported that they had spoken with more of the older people than with “ young progressive ” Maoris and commented: “ It is better for us to have heard more than a fair “ share of those who are conservative rather than a “ majority of those who have tended to move ahead “of the average Maori”.

Long before the end of the Inquiry it became apparent to the committee that the great majority of Maoris favoured changes in land law. The bill to amend the Maori Affairs Act was drafted to implement the committee’s recommendations. It was introduced on the third day of the 1967 session and, after consideration by the Maori Affairs Committee that was probably unprecedented in its length and complexity, Parliament passed the bill in the last week of the longest session for many years. Perhaps, as “The Press” urged at the time, the bill should have been delayed until this year. Outstanding misconceptions of its purpose might thus have been dispelled and unforeseen shortcomings amended. Although the Act was nearly three years in the making its critics continue to complain that it was “ rushed ”. That objection, at least, would have been met by a little delay.

Other criticism does not appear to be directed at any particular feature of the bill. It seems to be based on a belief that the freedom given to some Maori landowners to sell their land without the approval of the Maori Land Court is a way of disinheriting the Maori people. This belief does not do justice to the Maori people themselves and it misinterprets the Treaty of Waitangi mentioned only once during the hearings of the committee of inquiry. In an all-important phrase, the treaty guaranteed the Maoris collective or individual ownership of their lands “ so long as it is their wish “ and desire to retain the same in their possession The treaty did not deny them the right to sell if they wished to sell. Subsequent laws safeguarded ownership and protected sellers. The treaty still stands, except in one item: the right to buy Maori land is no longer exclusively the right of the State. That right was modified long ago by the functions of the Maori Land Court and further modified by last year’s legislation. The Prichard committee found that Maoris have been purchasing more value in land than they have been selling and the new law should do nothing to alter this heartening evidence of Maori progress.