NATIVE LAND PROBLEM.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLVIII, Issue 14729, 11 July 1911, Page 8

NATIVE LAND PROBLEM.

POLICY OF THE GOVERNME

/ ■ \i CRITICISED BY MR. HERRIES)

NO GENUINE SETTLEMENT.: [BY TELEGRAPH.— own CORRESPONDENT.] Wellington, Monday. An interesting and important statement regarding the native land question has been made "by Mr. W. H. , Hemes, M.P., in an : interview with .a representative of the Dominion. Mr. Hemes has made a special study of the Maori land problem, and probably no one in i New Zealand can speak ; : , with greater authority on this complicated subject. • Sir James Carroll is reported to have said in his Invercargill speech that the area owned by the Maoris in the North Island was 6,018,371 aires, as at March .31 last. Mr. Hemes objects to some of the deductions made by Sir James Carroll, and quotes figures to show that the estimate of native land given by him should be increased by 1,346,022 acres, making it at the time he spoke in the House on August 5, 1910, 7,383,150 acres, and only a little less on March 31, 1911. Mr. Herries goes on to say that, "from this amount Sir James further deducts in his speech in the House 3,592,676 acres, and in his Invercargill speech 3,916,342 acres, as being profitably occupied, leaving a balance of 2,444,452 and ! 2,102,029 acres respectively, as unoccupied -.' native land. The Acting-Prime ■ Minister had accused Mr. Massey of misrepresentation because he said there are about 4,000,000 : acres unproductive. Mr. Massey was quoting from a return of 1909, the; latest return given, | which gives the total of unproductive native land as 3,994,727 acres, and if we add the 1,346,022 acres wrongfully deducted to the figures given by Sir J. Carroll in his speech | in the House and his speech in Invercargill, j we will see that Mr. Massey was not far wrong in his estimate, after allowing for,; the transactions of over a year. .. - .j What is Occupation?: •', " If also," proceeds Mr. Herries, "we', examine Sir J. Carroll's table of lands in profitable occupation, we shall find ample food for reflection, and also that the statement that they are profitably occupied requires to be taken with a considerable grain of salt, if the common meaning of 'profitably occupied' is to be accepted. For, instance, 'lands •: leased direct from the natives, confirmed by the Native Land Court,' are given as* 1,500,000 acres in Sir James / Carroll's speech in the House. These ■ consist of all ; kinds of leases of varying lengths, some ■of which may be shortly expiring. Many of them are for very; short terms, which do not allow of much improvement being - done. ;: Many are leases:, held by adjoining freeholders, and cannot in any way be .termed- genuine settlement in - the modem .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 the Maori land boards, presumably under clause 16 'of the 1905 Act. ' This area: is probably a nearer approach to genuine settlement ;than any other mentioned, but it is curious that this clause was bitterly opposed by Sir J. Carroll on the Native Affairs Committee when proposed by Mr. A L. D. Fraser, and yet it- is the only clause that did anything in favour of settlement during: the long, dreary years between 1894 and 1909. ■.' '■> Then there is an amount of 247.489 given as the > acreage leased 1 through the; Maori land ', boards. ,: Two returns '; laid on the table of the House last : ; session; throw a curious side-light on this so-called settlement. One gives the ; names and acreage of the f blocks, y vested in : the = Maori land boards in consequence of ; the r 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 oyer the' return to affirm that it represents: successful settlement. For instance, we see that a great part of this : so-called settlement consists of leases of timber-cutting rights and flaxcutting rights, 49,134 acres are leased to one man, and only about 106,321 acres of rural land has been apparently genuinely settled by 147 settlers. " Again, another return shows the acreage of native land vested in the boards in consequence, of the report of the Native Land Commission and the subsequent* legislation of 1907 to be 328,187, which is in addition to the ; 396,313 acres vested in consequence of the. 1900 Act previously ■ mentioned. j- Of this 328,187 acres the magnificent amount of 4106 acres is announced, as having been disposed of either 'by h sale or lease in four years. The truth is that land vested iin the boards under > various; Acts (and Sir J. Carroll in his speech gives the total amount ias 1,029,362 acres) is just" as much locked up as if it was still native land, or rather more so, as even the natives cannot use it.

A Starved Department. -: : :''•'.'; * "I heard of a case of a native from the East Coast, who wished . to cultivate a piece of land he had in the King Country, and moved 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 the Royal Commission. He could ; J:not / even touch { his own land. The Board has no staff, and no money to use .'in;: the cutting up of land, and the consequence is that; neither native nor European has,' a chance to 'obtain sections in land vested in the boards Out of the 1,029,362 acres vested * in the boards, not more \ than 150,0.00 acres,': at the utmost, have been leased to genuine settlers, ; and then only on short leases as a rule. The whole Department is starved. The total vote for Maori land boards, including salaries and travelling , expenses last year, was only £3808, and 'nothing is voted specifically for opening up the lands they hold , : Even the advantages given by the 1909 V Act are nullified in the case of land vested in the boards, : as no pakeha can deal with the native !; owner. The administration of the boards lies like a blight on the land, not through the fault of the boards, but through their insufficient equipment. *■'■> '*■ v -\ The 1909 Bill. : "I notice that Sir J. Carroll denies the criticism of Mr. Massey and Mr. Allen on the 1909 Bill, but he is most unjust in that as he knows as well as I do that the ; Bill would never have passed except -for; the forbearance and .assistance of : the Opposition. The Opposition allowed the practical suspension ■ of ,; the ;i:'- Standing Orders to allow the Bill to be put through, not clause by clause, but by blocks of clauses, and Messrs. Massey and Allen i were only ; doing their duty in asking an explanation of the principal clauses. It was noticeable that though Sir James Car- | roll was in charge of the Bill, Mr. Ngata ; generally ! gave the explanation. In fact, the credit of the Bill is due to Professor '. Salmond and Mr. Ngata. The 1909 Bill is no doubt a great improvement on previous legislation, but it must be remembered that the more Sir James Carroll praises j the 1909 Bill the more he condemns tho previous native legislation of the Government, as it reverses a good deal and alters j more . of all the i legislation since 1894. / If the 1909 Act had been passed in 1894, I venture to say that if it had been properly administered ; the v native difficulty by this time would have been a thing 'of the past. Instead of that we have had, ever since Sir James Carroll's party came into power,' legislation ■; which the Royal' Com- i mission -itself . described J as : * doomod )';. to' | failure -and a block to settlement. ' ; ■• j Avalanches of Figures, i ; | ' "The" figures quoted by Mr. Ngata mean absolutely nothing as far as settlement is concerned.; : Because so• many -~ thousand • acres have,passed through a' Native Landi Court, or have been vested; in a/ board, or; have been; partitioned, t it ; does not ; mean i thatr settlement has taken place or even has been advanced .a. stage, and ,Ii venture to say that anyone who visits the North of Auckland or the King Country will see, notwithstanding the figures quoted by JSltinisters, native and Crown land in thou-i.

sands of acres lying idle, even though" ff has gone through. * Courts and Ap») i »" Courts, and has been tho subject of %\gy tion that has cost more .than, the ; land- tl worth. That is why speeches such -,'!' Sir James Carroll's and '•'NfataVhavA ' no effect up , North, as they hive ofcular demonstration of the fallacy of "the' avalanches of figures put - forward by th& Minister. There is no doubt that the Act of 1909 has to a certain extent-j - „ lated . and allowed tho settlement of Native land, but 'it is still not a " poo* nan's game, and until the costs and hazards axe reduced genuine settlement f» thfc true sense of the word will not be o« large* extent. Tho speculator is abroad* and- tho present native Sand laws no : doubt, favour him, but as long as there is . some Settlement I suppose -we 1 shall hava to be satisfied till a 1 radical alteration, ia ' the Native Department and' land'law* ■. is made, which, -will be' one 'of the,; .thorniest tasks of a' new Administration,'"' A \ Great Chance Missed. ■ "Sir James Carroll missed a great chance. Hi; was the one man who could have done iaoro to unite the two race* than any olher man in the Dominion and instead oS that the whole, aim of ths Government policy has been to separate the , races. It As only in 1909, after 17 years have been wasted in futile and in. defensible legislation, that the germ of a saner policy becomes visible, and if a wiser Government) comes into power the Act of 1909 may be used, as a founda-tion-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 villi agree that the spoilers Are those who, by their legislation, have absolutely taken away the freehold of 1,029,362 acree from' the natives, and handed it over to boards. and are responsible for clauses 84. 85, 86, and 87 of the Native Land Act,' 1909" • '•'■'■•.."■; -. v