LAND FOR MAORIS

Greymouth Evening Star, 16 May 1934, Page 7

LAND FOR MAORIS

TOO HIGH PRICES ALLEGED

OFFICIALS' EVIDENCE [FEB PBESS ASSOCIATION.! \. ROTORUA, May 15. Before the Native Commission, the first witness during the afternoon was J. IT. Watson, Accountant of Waiariki Native Land Board. Witness said he had held this position for the past four years, having previously been on the staff of the Lands Department. It had been impossible to carry out a proper system owing to a shortage of staff, which grew steadily more acute. He knew that system was required, but there simply was not the staff to carry it out. The system of keeping the majority of the main accounts in Wellington also made it very difficult. The whole of the accounts had now been

transferred to Rotorua, and the staff increased, with the result that the

position was now quite satisfactory. The posting of unit accounts was still a year in arrears, but he considered they would catch up by the end of July this year. Prior to this, he had done his best with the united staff, but had been obliged to let some stock records fall behind. He contended, however, that his records were sufficient to account for stock numerically. His office was not concerned with the financial side of stock matters, which was attended to at Wellington. He admitted that an over-allowance had been paid to Mitchell on the Makutu scheme, owing to the fact that witness misunderstood the regulations. This had since been rectified. To Mi’ Hampson, witness said that there was no doubt the schemes would not have progressed as they had done without the influence of Tai Mitchell,

who had not spared himself, in spite of the fact that he had not enjoyed good health ovex* a considerable period. William James Scott, farm supervisoi’ for the Native Department in Rotorua district, said that all of the schemes in and around Rotorua came undei’ his supervision. Dealing first with his work, witness said that the schemes had grown so rapidly that he had been quite unable to supervise all the -work in hand adequately. He undertook most of the purchases of beef cattle and sheep, but not of dairy cattle. Some of the latter he did not consider good purchases. Dealing with various schemes, witness said that personally he would not recommend taking up the Horohoro country for dairying, but he had not been consulted on the land to be taxcen up in this area. He also considered that

it was probable the eventual capital cost would be £l4 or £l5 an acre, which would be loaded on the land and make it impossible for unit occupiers to farm it successfully under present conditions. He considered a great deal of it could be worked as a payable proposition at £lO or £ll an acre, but It would have to be written down. He did not think the costs of the implements used on the Horohoro and subsequently taken to other schemes, should be loaded on the Horohoro land. The same applied to the cost of material in the reading of blocks. The natives were of a good type, and were working well. He thought that if the capital charges were' written down, they -would manage to pay their way. He criticised the system of manuring adopted, which he did not consider suitable for Rotorua land. This had been formulated by the Cawthron Institute, and carried out on the instructions of the Native Minister, but he considered the results had shown it was not effective. A fair proportion of the pasture would have to be reconditioned. He considered the Horohoro country could have been brought in for £l2 an acre if horse teams had been used, instead of tractors. The rough Horohoro country was not suitable for tractors, which proved very expensive, and further loaded costs on the land.

MORE PURCHASES QUESTIONED

ROTORUA, May 16. "When the Native Affairs Commission resumed this morning, William James Scott, farm supervisor, gave further evidence regarding various development blocks in the district. He considered that the Peka block would cost £l6 an acre by the time it was brought in, and even with butterfat at lOd would take good men all their time to make it pay. He would not take up that class of country himself. He thought the purchase of Brent’s farm for £2760 was justified, and had valued it at £3689 himself, although the Government valuation was £2OOO. It was a good change block for bush-sick stock, although he would not have considered its purchase had another block adjacent been available. He considered that the Okere and Taheke blocks of 15,000 acres had good prospects of yielding value, but should be run for four to five years as a grazing proposition to eliminate ragwort. Witness mentioned a number of other small blocks which he considered reasonable purchases. Dealing with Maketu, witness said that this should carry a cow to the acre and a-half, when fully developed. There was a short winter at Maketu and the block should support a lot of people. This was also a sound purchase. He criticised the purchase of the Tokaanu block, however, stating that he considered it worth only £6OOO of the £13,000 so far spent on it. There would have to be a substantial writing down here. In reply to Mr Nelson, witness agreed that transportation costs of four shillings a head on 3000 ewes brought from Hicks Bay to Ruatahuna block, were too high. Two shillings a head was sufficient. He thought there would also have to be a considerable writing down in regard to the Tihiotunga blocks, on which £41,000 so far had been spent. He agreed that the purchase of a farm from a man named Iles for £5OOO was not justified. It had been bought as a change block for bush sick sheep, but other blocks were available for this. The purchase had been made before his time.