A GREAT CHANCE MISSED.
FUTILE NATIVE LAND LAWS. POSITION EXPLAINED. ''. ME. HEEBIES REPLIES TO SIR ' JAMES CARROLL. j In an interview with a representative of The DuJii.viotf, Air. W. H. Hemes. M.P., ' who lias mado a • special study of .tho Native Land problem, gave a most effective reply to the statements on this question by Sir James Carroll and the Hon. A. T. Ngata during their recent toar to tho South Island: Mr. Herries said:— ' ' Sir.James Carroll is reported to have said in his Invercargill speech that tho area owned by the Maoris in tho North Island was 6,018,371 acres, as at March 31 last. Jn his speech in the House in the Financial, Debate on August 5,1910,h0 gives almost similar figures, viz.: (1,037,128 acres; but ho arrives at those figures in a very peculiar way. He takes the total acreage as ascertained by the Royal 'Commission as coming under the description of.Native land as his basis, viz., 7,4b5,0U0 acres.' Prom this ho deducts:— ,'-.'' _ Acres, (a) Area since. acquired by Crowii : 23,300 .(b) Area since acquired by pri- • vat© persons 35.550 (e) Area already sold ;;;m ,n- . eluded by error in Commission's estimate 20,000 Total 81,850 To this I have no'objection; but lio goes still further in his subtraction: ' (d) Area estimated for lakes, rivers, and springs ...200,000 (e) Area' to which'title has just been ascertained .....;.. 113,281 (f) Papatipu land '. 377,471 («) Lund in the Urewera area... 400,80:! (h) Laud under tho Thermal Springs Act 185.40S ■ Total 1,346,022 : Figures' Criticised. I cannot see any reason why these areas 6nould bo deducted from the total area of Native land. They 'certainly couio under ■that denomination, though thc.Uravera Country, and, until lately, the Thermal Springs District, were under separate Acts, but lor the purpose of laud held uuprefitablyby Natives, they have a right, to bo . , included. The deduction of 200,000 acres for' 1 lakes, rivers, mid spring's is a preposterous one, as the lakes are never, as a rule, included iu the surveys. Papatipu land is laud to which the litlo has not been ascertained, and is certainly Nativo land, but the names of the owners are unknown. Tho estimate of Native land given by Sir J. Carroll should, therefore, be increased by 1,310,022, making it, at tho timb he spoke iu the House on August 5, ■1910, 7,383.150, and only a littlo less .on . March 31, 1911. I'rom this amount he further deducts, in his speech in the House, 3,592,670, and 'in''lris Invercargill speech 3,910,342, as being profitably occupied, leaving a balance of, as he says, 2,444,452 and 2,102,029 i respectively as unoccupied Nativo land, and- accuses Mr. Massey of inisreprescn- i tation, because he says there aro about i 4,000,000 acres nnproduclive. Mr. Mas- ■ mj'.'was quoting from a return G3,'1909, < the; latest return given us, which gives : the.total of unproductive Nativo land as 3;95-4,727 acres; and if we add the 1,346,022 acres wrongfully deducted to the figures '■ ' given by Sir J: Carroll, in his speech in ; tho- House.-. and his speech iu Iriv'creirgill, we will seo that Mr. Massey ' was not far wrong in his estimate, after allowing for tho transactions of over a year. ■■ 'It also wo examine Sir J. Carroll's table ' of-lands in profitable occupation, we shall ; .find' ample food for reflection, and that the statement that they are profitably occupied requires to be taken with- a considerable grain -,ol salt, if.the common ! lneauinft of profitably occupied is to bo i accepted. For instance: "Lands leased direct from the Natives, confirmed by tho Native Land Court, are given as 1,500,000 acres in Mr. Carroll's speech in the House. These .consist of all kinds of leases of varying lengths, sorso of which may bo shortly expiring. Many, of them arc for very short-terms, which do not allow' -of 'much improvement being done. Many arc leases held by adjoining freeholders, and cannot in any way bo termed genuine settlement in the modern acceptance of the term. Then there is an area given ; as 1,175,177 as the acreage of land leased by Europeans, with the approval of tho Maori Land Hoards, presumably under Clauso 1G of the 1905 Act. This area is probably a nearer approach to genuino settlement than any other mentioned, but it is curious that this clause was bitterly opposed by Sir J. Carroll on the Native Affairs Committco when proposed by Mr. A. L. D. Fraser, and yet it is the only ■clause that did anything in favour of ccttlemcnt during tho long dreary yenrs between 1894 and 1909. < A Curious Side-light. Then there is an amount of 247,489 given as tho acreage leased through tho Maori Land Boards. Two'returns laid on tho table of tho House last session threw a curious side-light on tliis so-called settlement. G 10 gives tho riunies and acreage of tho blocks vested in the Maori Land Boards in consequence of tho legislation of 1900,' and from" that we ■ gather that 396,313 acres have been vested (excluding town -sections), and 229,038 acres leased, but I defy anyone looking over the return to affirm that it represents successful settlement. I'or instance, we see that a great part of this so-called settlement consists of leases of, timbercutting rights and flax-cutting rights; 49,134 acres are leased to one company, 18,065 acres are leased to one man; and only about 10G.321 acres of rural land has been apparently genuinely .settled by 147 settlers. Again, another, return, G 10A, stows the acreage of Native laud vested in-the board in consequence of the report of the Native Land Commission and the subsequent legislation, of 1907 to bo 328,187, which is in addition to tho 306,313 acres vested in consequence of the 1900 Act, previously mentioned. Of this 328,187 acres the. magnificent amount of 4100 acres is announced as having been disposed of ; either by sale or lease in four years. The truth is that land vested in tho boards under various Acts (and Sir J. Carroll in his August speech, gives the total amount as 1,029,362 acres), is just as much locked up as if it was still Nativo land, or rather more ss, as even the Natives cannot, use it. I heard of a case, of a Native from tho East Coast who wished to' cultivate a piece of land he had in tho King Country, and moved there with his teams and ploughs, only to find that without his knowledge his land had been vested in the Maori Land Board on.the recommendation of tho Royal Commission, and he could not oven touch his own land. Tho board has no. staff and no money to use in cutting up land, and tho consequence is that neither Native nor European has a cliance to obtain sections in land vested in-tho board. Out of the 1,029,362. acres vested in tho boards not more than 150,000 acres at the utmost have been leased to genuine settlers and then only on skort leases as a rule. The whole Department is starved; the. total vote from Maori Land Boards, including salaries and travelling expenses last year, was only .£3BOB and nothing is voted specifically for opening up the lauds they hold. Even the advantages given by the 1909 Act aro nullified-in the case of land vested in the boards as no pakelia can d»al with the Native owner.
Like a Blight on the Land. The administration of the boards lies like a bligi-.t on tho land, not through tho fault of th-j boards, but through their insufficient equipment. I notice that Sir J. Carroll denies the criticism of Air. Massey and Mr. Allen on tho 1901) Bill, but he is most unjust ill that, as he knows as veil as I do that tho Bill would never havo parsed except for Wis forbearance and assistance of the Opposition. The' Opposition allowed the practical suspension of tho Standing Orders to allow tho Bill to bo put through, not •lauso by clause, but by blocks of clauses; iml -Messrs. Massoy ami Allen were only doing their duty in asking explanations nf the clausos, and it was.noticeable that though Sir 3. Carroll was in charge of tho Bill Mr. Ngatn generally "avo the explanation.; in fact, tho credit of tho Bill is Sue to Professor Salmon i>rtd Mr. Ngata, Iho 1009 Bill is no (ioubfc ft great inEjr.oxom(sit pn firSTOW
legislation, but it must be remembered that the more Sir J. Carroll praises the 19011 Bill tho more he condemns the previous Nntivo legislation of the Government, as it reverses n good deal and alters nioro of all the legislation since 1891: If the 1909 Act had been passed in ISM, I venture to say that if it had been properly administered tho Native dihiculty by this time would.'have been a thing of the past'. Instead of that we had, ever sinco Sir ,1. Carroll's party came inio power, legislation which tho Royal Commission itself described as doomed to failure and a block to settlement. ihe figures quoted by Mr. Nguta mean absolutely nothing as far as settlement is concerned, .because so many thousand acres have passed through n Native. Land Court, or have been vested in a board or havo been, partitioned, it docs not mean that settlement has taken place or even has been advanced a stage, and I venture to sa'v tint anyone who visits tho North of Auckland or the King Country will see, notwithstanding the figures quoted by Alinistors, Nativo ( and Crown land in thousands of acres'lying idle even though it has- gone through Courts and Apnellalo Courts and has been tho subject of litigation that has cost more than the land was worth, and no further advanced toward settlement than it was 20 years ago. That is why speeches such as Sir J. Carroll's and Air. N'gata's havo no effect up north, as thev have ocular demonstration of the fallacy of avalanches of Bgures put forward by tho Minister. A Thorny Task. There is no doubt that Ihe Act of 190!) has to a certain extent stimulated and allowed settlement of Native land, but it is still not a poor man's game, and until the costs and hazards are reduced sonuino settlement in tho true sense, of the word will not be of largo extent. The speculator is abroad, and the present Native land laws no doubt favour him, but as long as there is some settlement 1 suppose we shall have to be satisfied till a radical alteration in the Native Department and land 'laws are made, which will be one of the thorniest tasks of a new Administration. Sir J. Carroll missed a great chance. He was the one man who could have done more to unite the two races than any other man in tho Dominion; instead of that, the whole aim of tho Government policy has been to separate the races. It is onlv in 1909, after seventeen years have been wasted in futile and indefensible legislation, that the germ of a saner policy becomes visible, and if a wiser Government "comes into power .-.the--Act 0f'1909 mav be used as a foundation stone by which the unification of the two races which is the one desire of all who wish well to the Native race may be at last attained. Sir James Carroll accuses the Opposition of wanting to spoil tho Natives, but I think most people will agree that the spoilers are those who, by their legislation, have absolutely taken away the freehold of acres from the Natives and handed it over to boards, and are responsible for Clauses 84, 85, BG, ana 87 of the Native Land Act, 1909.
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DOM19110711.2.67
Bibliographic details
Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1176, 11 July 1911, Page 6
Word Count
1,935A GREAT CHANCE MISSED. Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1176, 11 July 1911, Page 6
Using This Item
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the Dominion. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 3.0 New Zealand licence. This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.