THE New Zealand Herald. AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. THURSDAY, MARCH 13, 1913. THE "NATIVE DIFFICULTY."

New Zealand Herald, Volume L, Issue 15250, 13 March 1913, Page 6

THE New Zealand Herald. AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. THURSDAY, MARCH 13, 1913. THE "NATIVE DIFFICULTY."

That "the so-called 'native difficulty', is only a bogus difficulty and can be settled if tackled properly" iB the conviction of the Minister for Native Affairs, as expressed by him to Whangarei citizens, whose district has suffered so keenly from the " taihoa" policy. The remedy which commends itself to Mr. Herries is to have " one law for. both Maori and pakeha" and such a reform is undoubtedly favoured by a rapidlygrowing majority of the people of New Zealand. It may be said that there is an objection to this upon the part of a certain number of more or less influential Maoris, who have recently announced in very excellent English their eagerness to retain all that they regard as advantageous privileges and to avoid what most of us regard as responsibilities. Here we have a very natural and pathetic result of the amazing doctrine that a hereditary native aristocracy should be imposed upon the European settlers of the back blocks, a doctrine which was gradually developed during the long reign of the Continuous Administration and was temporarily anchored to actual legislative enactments which now astonish us by their temerity. The Maori is neither better nor worse than the Pakeha when an appeal is made to his personal desire for self-aggrandisement, and those of the native race who can be persuaded that their racial place in the national organisation is to form a caste of landlords possible excursions into the learned professions or casual transformation into wealthy agriculturists— are not to be blamed if they are fascinated by that gorgeous prospect. The blame must be laid upon the shoulders of those colonial Ministers and politicians who encouraged and fostered this preposterous ambition, and who have left the country entangled in a net of contradictory laws and demoralising misconceptions. The indignation of our country settlers at the hardships, handicaps and injustices imposed upon them by the " taihoa" policy was met by a deliberate endeavour to persuade the towns that speculators had created and were maintaining the clamour for the unlocking under fair conditions of the Native Lands. In the very nature of things townsmen as a body could know little of the effect upon settlement of the " taihoa" policy and the Souih Island was equally ignorant. Vast areas which paid no rates and contributed nothing to any form of public service lay across the North Island like a blight, yet not so long ago the Continuous Government actually passed a measure prohibiting even the State from purchasing any of these areas with the avowed intention of, having them ultimately . bx Pakeha on /

short leases, while the, rent-drawing Maori sat on the fence and watched the inferior Pakehas toil for his benefit. The fundamental principle of the "taihoa" policy— the Maori should idle while the Pakeha worked for him—must always be borne in mind when considering what Mr. Herries aptly terms the "so-called native difficulty." The Maori has the inherent rights which belong to every citizen of New Zealand and the same inherent duties. If he is less able than the Pakeha to look after his own interests—and he is said to be less able even though his one-twenty-fifth part of our population recently held over a-quarter of the seats in our Executive Council— his interests should be looked after with due regard to the interests of the European. But why should the Maori who is so capable of receiving payment of rent not pay rates Why should a people who do not hesitate to apply for Old Age Pensions, who make such laudable use of the public schools, who are beginning to understand that the hospital is better than the tohunga, who very properly travel by the State railways and who in a thousand ways are benefited by the laws, the State services and the national organisation, be forced or permitted to hamper settlement, to block expansion and to restrict the public revenue? There is no difficulty about collecting rates from the Pakeha, for the land itself is liable whether the owner is an individual, a partnership, or a company. Why should not Native land be similarly liable whether it has one owner or a thousand And granting that we should preserve to the sole use of the Maori those portions of land upon which he actually works for his subsistence by what rule of equity and justice can we specially and exclusively reserve for his lordship land which lies idle, unless it can be rented to some land-hungry Pakeha? We are sometimes told that we must not expect too much from the Maori, considering that he has to traverse in a few years stages of human progress which took the Pakeha many centuries, but we are never told the cardinal truth that the Maori is as able to work as he ever will be or as the Pakeha is to-day. The Maori at need is a competent industrialist. He can dig as well as any Austrian immigrant; shear as well as the Australian visitor, swing his axe and drive his team with any settler from Otago. Yet the effect of the absurd " taihoa" policy would be and largely is to make it unnecessary for him to work with his muscles because droves of Pakeha tenantry may dig for him, shear for him, fell timber for him and generally toil for ( him while he smokes his pipe, plays cards and waits for rent day. Such a relation between the races is utterly wrong. The European does not wish to take from the Maori anything that is his, but the European does resent a dual law which under pretence of protecting Maori rights starves the local authorities, degrades the settler, checks the settlement of the country and impoverishes the Governi ment ; while many intelligent Maoris realise with sorrow that the hopes of their race are being strangled by a demoralising system which saps its vitality and dooms it to decay.