The Evening Post. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 16, 1913. THE NATIVE LAND QUESTION

Evening Post, Volume LXXXVI, Issue 93, 16 October 1913, Page 6

The Evening Post. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 16, 1913. THE NATIVE LAND QUESTION

No subject has been a more prolific source of legislation than the Native land question, and none has proved more baffling to the average legislator. Few Parliaments, if any, and not many sessions have- passed without some addition to *he mass of legislation on the subject. One scheme, has -followed another in quick succession ; the ideal legislation-«that had discovered a final solution- for some particular problem was itself found 'to require amendment or repeal a- session or two later ;■ mutually inconsistent or obsolete provisions have been allowed to cumber the Statute-book for years; and the model Bill or clause that was designed to straighten out some particularly intricate tangle has not -infrequently proved to "have made confusion worse confounded. The two most comprehensive attempts -to deal with the question, in recent years were embodied in the Native Land Court Act of 1894 and the Native Land Act of 1909. Tlie first of -these measuresvi-endered the invaluable service of providing a new and carefully thought out code of procedure for the Court which -exists for the protection of the Natives ; and how well the second deserves the title of " comprehensive " is proved by tho fact that, it repeals, contoiid<i^ and amends Hixty-Jiioa

previous Acts and that it runs to no less than 441 sections. The fact that this consolidating measure was not passed till the year after the general consolidation of the statutes is -a testimony to 4;ho unique -difficulty -of the. subject. The Statutes Law Revision. Commissioners could consolidate -tout > they could not repeal or amend, and the extensive use of the legislative pram'ngknife that was needed 'to bring harmony out of the confusion -was beyond their jurisdiction. It is only in accordance •with what we have indicated as the ordinary course of things that the Native Land Act of 1909 should itself require amendment. The only wonder is that it should have remained for four years without amendment except by the Act of last session. The Legislature is now asked to compensate for its unwonted inattention of the three previous years ,by passing an amending measure that contains 122 -clauses. A considerable part of this extensive measure is concerned with questions of procedure and the machinery of administration ; and the changes proposed are often of obvious utility and do not in any case seem to provide much material for keen controversy. The- alteration in the constitution of the Maori Land Boards is one of the most important of these changes. The present arrangement under -which each of these Boarde is composed of three members, of whom one only has as a rule had any official experience and one at least must be a Maori, has not proved a success. Functions which are to a large extent judicial are not generally well exercised by men who, having had no special training, are liable to be swayed by all sorts of irrelevant considerations. In this respect the pakeha and the Maori are on the same footing, and we do-not suppose that anybody will venture to dispute the superior competence of a Board composed, as the Bili proxies, of a. Judge and. a Registrar of the Native Land Court t» the average Board constituted under the present law. It might have been better still to merge the Boards formally in the Native Land Court, but the Native Minister, while admitting that there was a widespread desire for the abolition of the Boards, said that he had found s» sweeping a. measure of reform to be impracticable. The new tribunals will beyond question be a considerable improvement on the present ones, but the substantive changes in the law regarding alienation need to be very carefully watched. One of the principal object* of the changes introduced by the Act of 1909 was to facilitate the alienation and settlement of Native land, and the present Bill seeks to extend this policy. The process is so difficult to carry out with a due regard to the interests of the Natives that it must be safeguarded with the most jealous care. The Native Minister spoke fairly and smoothly when he introduced the Bill last week, but it is impossible to forget that he leans strongly towards free trade in Native land, and that "Native landlords" are among the abominations of his party. 'To the Minister's assurance that the Bill does no injustice to the Natives, Mr. Ngata replied " Not on the face of it." We trust that Mr. Ngata will help the Native Affairs Committee to look beneath the surface and expose the dangers that may lurk beneath a fair disguise. Speaking generally, we should cay that the proposals for expediting the ascertainment of titles ought to prove an unmixed blessing, and that in particular the initiative with which the Judges are to be entrusted in the matter of partition and succession orders should be of great service in promoting this object. But we look with great suspicion upon any relaxation of the conditions of alienation. The principal Act provides, in accordance with policy, that no alienation of Native land is to be confirmed if its effect will be to moke any Native "landless." Clause 84 of the Bill proposes that where the land in question "is not, having regard to all the circumstances, likely to be a material means of support" to the owner, or where he is " qualified to pursue some avocation", trade, or profession, or is otherwise sufficiently provided with a means of livelihood," the protection established by the Act may be disregarded. We -trust that Parliament will ,not consent to provide co dangerous an opening for the free trade wedge.