ORAKEI LANDS

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXV, Issue 23123, 23 August 1938, Page 12

ORAKEI LANDS

;• 'THE ROYAL COMMISSION 11 CASE FOR THE CROWN ;i JiISTORY OF TRANSACTIONS If* ALL SALES VOLUNTARY I f \ ' ' The adjourned sitting of the Royal 1 Commission to inquire into and report J 1 xo grievances alleged by Maoris with ' rc_"rrl to certain lands at Orakei was '»' started before Mr. Justice Kennedy yes- ! terday. Mr. V. R. Meredith appeared i for the Crown. Mr. Sullivan repre- • F»>ntod the interested Maoris and Mr. "\Y. H. Cocker attended on behalf of ' the General Trust Board of the Diocese : of Auckland. ! The commission first sat on July 4 1 and was then adjourned until July 11, ! when it was again adjourned pending ' the completion of a hearing of a Supreme Court action affecting a portion of the land under consideration bv the commission. Mr. Meredith said there were, [ broadly, three matters contained in the ' reference to .the commission. They were: The question as to the return to the natives of the Papakainga block; the > question whether the land known as the Church site should be returned to > the natives; and the question whether certain promises had been made to one J AYiremu Watene. "No Pressure on Natives" I Mr. Meredith traced the history of ' the lands involved and when dealing r with negotiations for the purchase of « land in the main and Papakainga blocks • iii 1913 emphasised that all sales were

; Jtoiuntary and no pressure was brought I 'iip bear, upon the natives. Purchases h #pn.tinued to be made from 1914 to I. 3827., the- total amount of land pur- » * chased by the Crown, being 36 acres 34.01 perches, while one rood 13 perches II had been given as a Church site and cemetery to the natives. J, It was quite obvious, said Mr. .Mere- { . ditli, that the natives knew perfectlyf' well that they wero selling Papakai- {£' uga, as they were receiving hard cash as they sold it. An indication that the selling' was absolutely voluntary was f,l given by the fact that the sellers went into the negotiating office in Auckland i j . and did not wait to be visited them- !•; selves. In every way the natives must ,1 have been cognisant of the proceed;l jugs. • }1 !■ £11,897 for Papakainga Block ; By 1927, Mr. Meredith continued, the natives interested in the PapakaiJS nga block had been paid £11,897 for £* the portions Bold. Another £2250 was *4 jpaid in 1912 by the Auckland City J? Council as compensation following sewerage work. The simple suggestion •3 ijiow made in the Maoris! petition was jjhat, having willingly sold interests and J* Received just under £12,000 for them, I* the laud be given back to them. £ r In addition, £230,892 of State money Ji and £200,000 as the Auckland City Council's, contribution, had been spent ** ton the "waterfront road and internal m ronding and sewerage. The benefit of Ihis huge" expenditure attached to the f Qrakei "block, Mr. Meredith said, so il that the position of the request for the return for nothing of something for M which the natives-had been paid almost' *4 £12,000, was exaggerated by the fact J f .that the land would now have attached • • to it th© benefit of this huge expendi»v ture of public money. f" . Natives Fully Cognisant » Various partitions of land at Orakei { had also been made by the Native Land Court from time to time, Mr. Merely dith continued. The natives had been : represented at the making of these J*V partition .orders. It was obvious that ♦ the Maoris, in addition to having the | money, had been fully cognisant that i the ; land was being partitioned away * from ,them. It was difficult to under- » stand where the idea had come from I in 1928 and onward that they had not • parted with the land and were to have f it back again, plus the enhanced value i resulting from the accumulated effect | of a huge sum of public money. > Mr. Meredith said that if the Crown I had not'made the purchases it would [ have been only a matter of time before [ private individuals bought the lands. He also stated that there was no real t difference between the purchase of this I native land and any other purchase of > native land which had been made by [ the Crown. He could see no valid rea- ' son whv the Crown should not have ! made tne purchases and he advanced i general health and social reasons why ■> the Maoris would not lose by the pur- [ chases. | Fairness of Transaction j Speaking of the fairness of the pur- ; chase price, Mr. Meredith said that in most of the cases the value at which the land was bought was in excess of ) the Government valuation at the time of the purchase. On the question '3 whether the natives had anv right for refusing to vacate the purchased land, * Mr.. Meredith said there could, be no j' justification at„ all for this and the Maoris had no right to stay there. In i addition' to selling voluntarily _ and j being paid in cash, _ they had enjoyed the advantage of living there rent free !,. lor many years because immediate use of the fand had not baen wanted by f ;.the Crown at the time of purchase. • 0 It would seem that the mere fact of l .£o being allowed this advantage was to (If be used as an argument why a vendor who had been paid should not give up the land'which he had sold. Mr. Meredith dealt with a very large number .of points concerning the 12 orders of reference before the commisfiion. His outline of the Crown's case ' occupied l the whole of the da v. Evidence : for the Crown will be called to-day. It is expected that the hearing will occupy j several days.