CASE FOR THE MAORI

Waikato Times, Volume 126, Issue 21037, 13 February 1940, Page 7

CASE FOR THE MAORI

GRIEVANCES EXPLAINED ABSENCE FROM WAITANGI ALLEGED LAND INJUSTICES MAORI AUTHORITY EXPLAINS “The Waikato-King Country-Tara-naki tribes were not officially represented at the Waitangi celebrations because from the Polynesian viewpoint their most sacred sentiments had been traversed by pakeha “caterpillar tractor and bush and bog harrow,” for rightly or wrongly the fact is indisputable that the person of their Tino Ariki, or King, is to them sacred,” said the Rev. A. J. Seamer, well-known Maori authority, who has been in the confidence oE Maori leaders for over 40 years, when interviewed in Hamilton today. “The King is the symbol of all the Maoris’ ancient mana and prestige,” continued Mr Seamer. “They are loyal to King George in all national matters. To Koroki they render an entirely different homage. He is but a lad, but he is a symbol of that which the Polynesian considers his soul. , , “If it is not too late I would plead with the Government to recognise the importance of this Polynesian viewpoint.” “In asking for the sacredness of Koroki to be kept inviolate, the Maori is merely remembering what the Great Teacher asked, ‘What shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world and lose his own soul?’ ” “When dealing with questions of mana and prestige, any suggestion brought in of material advantage and money is a deadly insult to the true Polynesian,” said Mr Seamer. “Princess Te Puea is really one of the most progressive forces among the backward tribes, and should receive every encouragement, rather than be subjected to petty annoyance.” Friend of the Natives Mr Seamer, who has retired from all official positions, has been the friend and confidant of various Maori tribes for many years and has often acted in the capacity of confidential adviser to the native leaders. In today’s interview, Mr Seamer explained that the Maoris were not sullenly looking backward and brooding over the past, but it was because they were looking forward that they wished to see past wrongs adjusted to clear the way for true progress, hand-in-hand with pakeha citizens. “It can hardly be over-emphasised that the Polynesian viewpoint is distinctly different from the European and very different also from Melanesian,” said Mr Seamer. “It was the failure of the then administration to recognise this fact that precipitated the Maori war. It was a better intention but similar failure that caused, and is still causing, trouble in Samoa. A further well-intentioned but almost complete failure on the part of the previous and present administration is again embittering the soul of the true Maori Polynesian. Treaty of Waitangi “The Treaty of Waitangi is celebrated and lauded by both platform and press. It is recognised as a living, vital document, binding upon the conscience of the Crown. Is it not the duty of Parliament to see that all its operative past enactments and present policy are in harmony with the provisions of the Treaty, and if these provisions have been broken to make the necessary readjustment to free the conscience of the Crown and the soul of the New Zealand native?” Quoting typical cases of the failure to understand the Polynesian viewpoint, and of breaches of the treaty and political injustice, Mr Seamer said that the Maori leaders were as intensely loyal to the British Crown as they were critical and distrustful of the New Zealand Government. “The following are a few of the alleged cases of broken faith that are ever in the mind of the Maori people behind their pleasant oratory, hospitality and gentlemanly behaviour: “(1) North Auckland: Large areas of Maori land were quietly gazetted as waste land and vested in the Government. When the owners discovered this ‘breach of the treaty’ they entered a formal protest, which has been renewed from time to time, but had no effect until last week, when the Minister stated that a commission was at long last to be appointed. Taranaki Troubles “(2) Taranaki: Royal Commissions have inquired into Taranaki grievances and their reports have been tabled in Parliament. Some of the recommendations of these commissions have been carried out, but even so the conditions imposed and later limitations and alterations deprived the Maori of these rights. “The alteration of the terms and conditions of the settlers’ leases was an example of the changes that were made. A present-day example is that the confiscations grant, made to recompense the Maoris for excessive land confiscation after the Maori wars, although nominally handled by the Taranaki Trust Board, is actually supervised from Wellington. It is consequently being used chiefly for objects which in other districts are financed from general funds. “For instance, practically the whole Taranaki Maori district nursing service is paid out of the confiscation fund. This is definitely unfair. These monies should be used for re-estab-lishing the morale of the Taranaki tribes and providing land for landless natives. Position in Waikato “(3) Waikato: The report of the Royal Commission here again reveals a sorry position and makes urgent recommendations. However, these recommendations are not being put into effect. It is truthfully reported that Waikato was disinclined to accept the settlement offered, but that was because of the conditions attached. The Taranaki experience goes to prove that Waikato was wisely advised. “The Waikato tribe has long been ready to accept waste land in lieu of part of the ground and the balance to be used for the improvement of such lands. We are told that the Waikato is different and sullen. This, however, is not correct. “Waikato is intensely Polynesian. She is also wise and somewhat tardy in making decisions, but Waikato

“taihoa” is urgent haste compared with Government “taihoa” in dealing" in Maori matters. “(4) Bay of Plenty: Here again the position is somewhat similar and Government action is inexcusably tardy. “(5) South Island: The Ngatahu claim was proved but the settlement is far from complete. Land in Otago “(6) Otago: It is alleged that when the Crown consented to the sale of a large area of Otago to the New Zealand Company it was subject to the condition that one-tenth of the land intended for towns and one-tenth of the farming land should be preserved for all time for the Maoris and their descendants. It would seem that the New Zealand Company's sale of its rights to the Scottish company was endorsed by the Government without the retention of this provision, and from that day to this Otago chiefs have been quietly but persistently asking what has happeneJ to their ‘tenths.’ ” In conclusion, Mr Seamer said much could be said concerning the disappointment of the Maoris in connection with the administration of the splendid Government Land Improvements Scheme. However, h« would like to put the viewpoint of the Maori in this regard before the public at a later date.