FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSION.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1847, 31 July 1907, Page 41

FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSION.

NATIVE ' LEGISLATION TRACED. CHANGES OF POLICY. In their general report the Commissioners say the: confusion of our native land laws is admitted by everyone, the history of over forty years’ legislation on the subject revealing sharp changes or oscillations of policy. The mind of the Legislature has swung like a pendulum between the extremes of restriction against private _ alienation and freo trade in native lands. INDIVIDUALISATION OF TITLES. Ihe Act of 1862 required that the native ownership of land should be decided prior to the leasing or sale. The Ci own waived its right of pre-emption, and direct dealings with Maoris under certain restrictions were authorised. In 1865 the Native Land Court was established as a tribunal to investigate title©. Not more than ten individuals could be ir sorted in any certificate of title, and these ten became the absolute owners foe purposes of alienation. Complaints regarding this led to the passing of the Act of 1867 under which, though a title could still be issued to ten individuals, the names of the beneficiaries require to be registered. The next great change was in 1873, when the Legislature established the principle of individual title. No contract or agreement, lease, sale, or mortgage could be valid unless it were executed by every person named in the mr mortal of ownership. “So far,” say the Commissioners, “the policy followed by Parliament was to permit direct negotiation for the sale, lease or mortgage of native lands subject to ascertainment of title and complying with certain formalities. The Crown had ' waived the right of pre-emption. This was the heyday of the freetrade policy.” PURCHASE OF NATIVE LANDS.

In 1881 the Crown resumed its preemptive right in the King Country and absolutely .prohibited the sale or lease of any portion of that territory to private individuals. Two years later an Act was passed, to stay individual dealings in native lands, but this was inoperative for certain reasons, no land being brought under it© operation. The Commission of 1891 advised the appointment of a Native Land Board, to which would be delegated the sole power of leasing and managing tribal lands, under directions from native committees re-

presenting the owners of various blocks. In the following year the pre-emptive right was resumed all over the State, and the Government set about the purchase of native lands in a systematic manner, the issue of a proclamation that negotiations were in progres barring private dealings. In 1894 Parliament passed a, general enactment prohibiting private dealings with native lands but saving all the rights of the Crown. Provision was also made for the incorporation of the owners of a block or block© and the appointment of committee© with full powers to alienate under certain condition©. In ITU the ■ Government centralised in itself the power to decide what native lands should be acquired for general settlement and what lands of what native owners should be sold, leased or mortgaged to private individuals-

The period 1895-1900 was marked by no change of policy, but by a vigorous prosecution of the purchase of native lands by lhe Crown. Continuing, the report says—Events that followed in quick succession between 1892 and 1900 —the wholesale purchase of native lands under the pre-emptive right at nrices that seemed inadequate, and under a system that appealed fx> the weaknesses and improvidence of the Maoris, the sudden introduction of settlers into hitherto virgin areas through the medium of tile ballot-box, the necessity of providing roads ami other means of ccrr mimical ion with the new settlements and of providing by rates for their maintenance; the hampering restrictions against leasing, vdiich, while retarding the utilisation of unoccupied lands, allowed large areas of expired leaseholds to revert to the owners and to be subiected to costly and futile litigation; ttm delays in partitioning and surveying land© and in the completion of titles, to which delay Parliament contributed by legislative interference with the work of the Native Land Court; these and other circumstances conspired to create between 1897 and 1900 a bewildering state of affairs. Maori opinion ivas gradually consolidated in numberless meetings all over the North Island, and for the first time the Waikato confederacy, under the leadership of their hereditary chief and of their representative in Parliament, took an active paid in Maori politic©. Petitions setting forth general principles for the future administration of native lands were presented year after year, and one numerously signed was presented to the late Queen Victoria on the occasion of her Diamond Jubilee. Though divided on many points, the tribes were unanimous in asking—(l) That the Crown cease the purchase of native lands; (2) that the adjudication, management, and administration of the remnant of their lands be vested in controlling Councils, Boards, or committees composed of representative Maoris. CESSATION OF PURCHASE.

This general revulsion of feeling amongst Maoris and pakchas against the Crown purchases influenced the Government to practically decree the cessation of its purchases, except as to dealings then pending, without waiving the Crown’s right to pre-emption; The Act of 1900 was doomed to fail. Large areas in the Wanganui district and others in tho Hot Lakes, the King Country, and tho East Coast were vested in the District Councils, but, on the whole, the Maori people showed an unwillingness to entrust the administration of their lands to the Between 1900 and 1806 the Legislature encroached upon tne principle of voluntarily vesting lands in the Councils. The Governor and the Minister were empowered for certain purposes to vest land in the Council, and, finally, the Minister was empowered to move the Governor . to vest in the Councils in certain districts lands not required or not suitable lor proper settlement by the Maori owners. “ The position reached in 1908 was, therefore, this: that Parliament, or those initiating the native legislation, recognising the unwillingness of the Maori people to place their lands under the administration of the Councils . or Boards, had decided to use compulsion in certain cases.” PRIVATE ALIENATION. Concurrently with this, limited private alienation was permitted by the legislation of 1900, and in districts hitherto restricted, such as the King Country and Upper Wanganui, many blocks were leased with the and upon the recommendation of the Councils. The tendency towards free trade, developed in 1905 a demand for the removal of all restrictions against leasing, and resulted in the passing of the Maori Land Settlement Act of 1905, which permitted a greater measure ol freedom than had been enjoyed for over a decade. “ There is no doubt in our minds,” continues the report, “ that the legislation of 1894 to 1900 and that of 1900, by tying the hands of the Crown in the further acquisition of native, lands, by restricting the leasing of those lauds and by substituting a system depending for its success on the willingness of the native owners to vest, areas in the administrative bodies constituted, created a deadlock and a block in the settlement of the unoccupied lands. The agitation of 1904 and 1905 forced the Crown once more into the field to resume its purchases, forced Parliament to sanction the compulsory vesting of lands in the Maori Land Boards, and reopened the free leasing of native lands.” Thrown on their own resources, actuated by the example of farmers newly settled in their midst, and alarmed by the criticisms of the press, which pointed towards compulsory seizure and practical confiscation, the Maoris, contemplated the possibility of utilising their lands in the pakeha fashion. INJUSTICE OF CROWN PURCHASES. Remark is made under another head on the injustice of Crown purchases prior to 1905, when a vast estate passed from the Maori owners for the. mm:o>es of general settlement in the w aiip.mui and Rohe-Potae for a price which seevea to be inadequate. Parliament fix'd tin minimum price in 1995 at: the ea.’tal value assessed under tho Valuation of Land Act. 1898. which \v.-u- con if., bit. but

m the absence of competition an approach to market value was difficult of ascertainment. It is admitted that the Crown has made no provision for the value of milling timber in localities where it can be economically worked, “alleging that in the rands of the Waste Lands Board milling timber is not an asset. But why should the Maori owners be penalised because in the administration of our Crown lands the most has not been made of valuable milling timber?” SOLD AT ANY PRICE. Theoretically the Crown does not buy unless the owners are willing to sell, but the Commissioners remark that circumstance© are created which practically compel the Maori people to sell at any price in the absence of competition. The weaknesses and improvidence of the race are directly appealed to, and the sight of a Government cheque book is sufficient for the majority of owners to waive all considerations and put their signatures to the purchase deeds. The evidence of waste and prodigality in connection with recent purchases in Hawke’s Bay, Wanganui, and the King Country are absolutely conclusive that provision is necessary for controlling and preventing the wasteful expenditure of the proceeds of a sale. While it is clearly the dutv of the State to provide land for the wants of an increasing population, it must see that in the performance of that duty it dees no injustice to any portion of the community, least of all to members of the race to which the State has peculiar qbligations and responsibilities. The time has come when it behoves the State to consider not tho theory on which Ms mirchases of. native lands are founded, but the. practical results of a system which, with occasional pauses and slight improvements, has omsisted for more than half a century. RESERVATION OF LANDS. Discussing the reservation of. lands for the maintenance of the individual Maoris, the Commissioners state that if each of the owners exercised the right of selecting and retaining np to say one half of the maximum of 1000 acres of first-class land, or 2000 acres of seconded a,ss or 5000 acres of third-class, they know of only three cases in the districts which thev have visited where any surplus would be available for settlement. To suggest that Maori owners should be restricted within such limits—narrower than those permitted to a, European —would reveal a desire to ignore the Maori Rights Act of 1865, and to treat the Maoris not as citizens but as pariahs. AN INDEFENSIBLE SYSTEM. It is our duty, say the Commissioners, to point out that it would be difficult to defend the present system of land-pur-chases. The Crown purchases land from the Maoris and pays for these purchases out of borrowed money. As soon as the purchases are complete and a title obtained from the Native Land Court the land is passed over to the Lands Department for survey, sale. etc. The income derived from the sale of these lands becomes ordinary revenue. No provision is made for the repayment of the amount borrowed for the purcha.se of the Lands. We do not suppose that any one would say that this is sound finance, yet this is the system that has been going on for a number of years, and it has been the policy adopted not by one Government, but bv many Governments. Our review of the position compels us to recommend to your Excellency that the acquisition of native lands by the Crown under the present system of purchase be discontinued. LIMITATION OF AREA. On the question whether there is anythin'” to prevmt a lessee taking up as much land as he likes under separate leases, each less than the prescribed maximum, the Commissioners state that probably leaseholds may be aggregated either in the hands of a person already possessing an abundance of leaseholds or in the hands of those who own large freeholds. “It is a curious reflection that while the colony has committed itself to a policy of close settlement in respect of Crown lands, with limitations as to the area any one selector may hold, it hae permitted, and still appaiontly peimite, aggregation in native lands.” The Commission believes that the principle of limitation was intended to apply to native lands, and urges that this should be made clear. It does not inquire whether a graduated tax would secure the end best, but believes that if limitation is a proper policy, as has often been affirmed by the Legislature, it should be directly enforced. FREETRADE. On the subject of freetrado in native land, the Commission says :—“The only fair thing, in our opinion, both to the Maori owners and to all would-be purchasers or lessees, is tnat the latter should be put on an equality, and this can only be attained by allowing the highest bidder to become the purchaser or lessee, but limiting the persons who can become competitors according to the extent of their land-holdings at the time of sale so a© to accord with the policy of the country in respect to Crown lands. But no sudh scheme is possible unless at auction the title is guaranteed to the highest bidder. And here the nature of the native title places insuperable difficulties in the way. No auctioneer under such circumstances can give satisfactory assurances Having remarked that the policy between IyOO and 1906 tended in the direction of compulsorily vesting lands in the Boards for administration, the Commissioners express the opinion that the Boards must be used much more freely and on a greater scale in future if large areas of unoccupied land are U) bo thrown open for settlement. In dealing with the”lands now remaining in the hands of the Maori people, the Commission considers that the settlement of the Maoris should be the first consideration. “And it is because we recognise the impo rsibility of doing so on a comprehensive scale by the ordinary, method of partition and individualisation that wi ivcom mend the intervention of a, body, such as the Maori Land Board, to Mf r i'i: ed % itli powers sufficiently elastic tfl i,..vt thfe e:agencies of the situation. Wi

are of opinion that some of the surplus Maori land should be sold out the ■purposes of any such sale should be defined. The area of good land available for disposition in this manner, having • regard to the present necessities ot the Maori people, their prospects as settlers under a proper system, and the needs of their' descendants, is lif t as great as is generally supposed. ,Of infer-o„ lan-; not suitable, for close settlement, and lit, only for forest reserves and sncb purposes, there 1 is ample, but we doubt if there will be any keen demand for such . land. Where we have recommended ■ areas for sale we have done so at the request of the owners. We have stated tht'ir wishes as to leasing.”