“Nemesis.”

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume II, Issue 173, 24 July 1888, Page 2

“Nemesis.”

The prospect of the Government succeeding in carrying the Native Land Bill this session is seriously imperilled by three causes. The first of these has nothing to do with the Bill itself, nor does it affect that Bill only, or even that in particular. But it is a very potent cause of danger to the Bill, all the same. It is the fact ihat the Government do not command the confidence of a majority of the House. They remain in office, not by the support of any party, but solely by the temporary assen’ of their opponents, who are too divided among themselves at present, to put them out and take their place. Thus upon sufferance, perhaps, they are able to procred with measures of no importance, which the House generally are in favor of. But they ate not able to proceed with any confidence, still less with any certainty, with measures upon which the House are divided, or as to which there is any strong party feeling. If the Opposition choose to vote against any measure they can defeat it, unless the Secession party choose to lend their assistance too the Government, which the latter have no right to expect, and cannot depend upon. Now the House are very sharply divided upon the Native Land Bill, and there is a deal of strong feeling regarding it. The Government being without a majority, therefore, are not in a position to proceed with it at all, except at the risk of being defeated at any stage. They have referred it to a Committee in the nomination of whom the Opnosition had a considerable say, but the Secession Sarty do not appear to 'have b-en c insulted. even out of the sixteen Members of the Committee are pronounced opponents of the Bill, and there may be more. Except for the purpose of gaining time, it is not easy to see what object the Government had in referring the Bill io such a Committee. The Bill will probably not receive very tender treatment "at their hands, and whatever their re port may be, the Government wii I be in as weak a position as they were in before, as to carrying the Bill through the House. The want of a majority is a fatal drawback, which is by no means diminished by tbe Bill having been referred to a Committee.

The other two causes of danger have rela tiou to the Bill itse f. One of them is a distinct blunder on the part of the Government, while the wisdom of the other is a matter of op nion. The Bill not only deals with the administration of native lands, but it deals with the validation or c mpletion of certain titl p s aud with the taxation of native lands. These two latter questions are altogether seperate from the main question of the administration of native 1 nds, and are quite capable of being dealt wi h separately. The only result of attempting to deal with them in the Native Land Bill, is to arouse hostility to the whole measure. If the Government commanded a majority, that would not matter much : because their majority would carry the Bid, whatever it contained. It was no doubt framed upon the supposition that they would have a majority, as, of course, every Government ought to have i the expectation being that the objectionable features would be carried under the wing of the other sections which the Ministerial Sarty as a whole approved of. But the [inisterial party no longer exist as a majority, or even as a powerful minority ; and consequently, the presence of the objection. able sections in ihe Bill will very likely kill it. We believe a large majority of the House are opposed to the validating clauses, and would rather throw out the whole Bill than let them pass. Many Members say reasonably enough that they are willing to assist the Government to carry a Bill for promoting the settlement of native lands, though they may not think the proposed method the best and though they have no liking for the G overnment : but they are not prepared to do the dirty work of the Govern* ment in legalising transactions which mayor may not he swindles, for the benefit of individuals. In short, only a very strong Government could hope to carry the policy Bill which is made as a cover for giving this, that and the other person possession of a great slice of native land. Last session the Government had to drop the Bill from this cause, mainly ; and, oi course, they were infinitely stronger last session than they are now. Their only chance of carrying the Bill, we are convinced, is to abandon all attempts to deal with the past transactions or Unocal* pleted titles. As to the proposal to subject native land to taxation, the immediate and very natural effect of that is to set the natives bitterly against the Bill. One of the Native Members declared it is the worst Native Lands Bill that has ever been introduced; and all four of them are opposing it. There is a great deal to be said on both sides of the question ; but on the whole, we think, the Government made a mistake in constituting taxation of native land a feature of their policy. We think so lor two reasons. Firstly, the wisest policy would be one by which alt native land not included in reserves would speedily pass into the hands of Europeans, and so oome under taxation in the ordinary course. Oar own opinion strongly is that the sooner the Natives cease to own any land at all, except to live upon and enjoy themselves upon, tbe belter for all concerned, especially for the Natives themselves. We look upon the native ownership of the land as a curse to the country and a curse to the Natives; and the native land policy of the Government is only worthy of support in so far as it tends to terminate that ownership with the least possible delay, From this point of view, it is manifestly um necessary to impose taxation on native land. Absolute freetrade in native land would very quickly gain all the object, by transferring the ownership to taxpayers. .Then, the natives may complain that they are already pretty heavily taxed on their land. Whenevei native land is sold to an European, 10 pente cent, of the purchase money goes to the OrownM This is neither more nor less than a capita- 5 Used property tax, It is nominally paid by the European purchaser; but it stands to reason that it is really paid by tbe native sellers, who receive one tenth less for their land than they would otherwise get for it, The natives may fairly claim that this stands in lieu of taxation, In any case, however, we doubt the advisability of raising the question of taxing native land at this stage, when what is really wanted is to make it native land no longer, and when it is quite, certain that before many years are over, it will cease to be native land. It may be contended, per* haps, that taxation wquld hasten the process, because the natives would sell their land to escape the taxation. But we do not suppose the Government would employ that contention in support of their proposal. Taxation for the purpose of forcing the landowners to sell, is so like confiscation that it is hard to see the difference. We fear the Government have greatly ip, creased the difficulty of getting go effective native land law by raising the question o| taxation, as well as by making their Bill g warming pan foj what are looked upon, rightly or wrongly, a; jobs. Their greatest difficulty of all, however, lies in the absence of-that majority which they so wantonly sacrificed for the sake of parrying ths Black Budget.—Wellington Press.