I.—3a

6

Hon. Mr. Carroll: Taupo. Te Heuheu: Now Igoon to the 3rd clause of the petition, that part of the 3rd section which provides that the Act objected to is vesting the lands absolutely in the hands of a Board. My statement with reference to that part of the petition is that section 7 of the Bill, and subsections (1), (2), and (3) thereof, provide for two Maori members of the Board, two European members, and a Chairman also to go with them, who will have a casting-vote. That makes four votes against the two Natives. Captain Bussell: The Chairman has only a casting-vote ; that is three votes only. He has no deliberative vote. Te Heuheu: If that is so—if the Chairman has only a casting-vote and no original vote—that makes the difference three to two. We may have taken a wrong impression from the section, but we understood that it meant four votes. Secondly, the principal reason why we say our lands will be taken absolutely away and vested in the Board is owing to the fact that the Commissioner of Crown Lands in the district in which the land is situated is to be appointed Chairman and head manager of the whole thing, because, as we look at it now, it simply means that the Chairman can do as he likes. And another thing we are afraid of is this : Prom the very fact of the Chairman being Commissioner of Crown Lands, and therefore a member of the Government Administration, he must be biassed in favour of the Government interest. That is to say this : Supposing at any time this Board constituted by section 7 were sitting, and it was ordered that the Native title over that land should cease, I am afraid they would be able to do it under this section —to kill the Native title and rights. What supports that view, I contend, is this : that any of the members, either Maori or European, of the Board can be removed if the Governor in Council saw any reason why they should be so removed. I can say this now :If the actions or views of a member do not fall in with their wishes and views they can have him removed. Now, the third reason why we say we are afraid the mana of our lands will be vested absolutely in the Board is this: The Board is empowered to borrow money. What we object to in this is that the people owning the land have no voice at all in the decision of the Board as to whether it shall or shall not borrow money. That is to say, they are not in a position to see what the Bill provides in another place. We are willing that the amount of £5,000 shall be borrowed, or less than that, or whatever sum they might chance to agree upon. We think that is a very important aspect of this matter. Our fourth reason for saying that this Bill will take away all the rights of our land is the fact that this Bill supersedes the old rights to the land—that is to say, Our former titles under Crown lands, Crown grant, or memorial of ownership, or whatever title it may be. All those forms of mana that are known by the European under the general name of title will be superseded by this. Our fifth reason is on account of the expression " fee-simple," in section 19, subsection (a). What we understand the word fee-simple to mean is an absolute wiping-out of all Maori rights to the land, and absolutely vesting without reserve in the Board the rights to the land. That being so, as we look upon it, the Board can do whatever it likes, according to its own sweet will, with regard to the land. It can make use of the land to borrow money from England or from any bank where money can be got, because it is absolutely not competent for any one to interfere or to say what shall or shall not be done with it. The Board has got the land entirely in its own hands, and can do what it likes with it. Or they can settle people on the land and do whatever they please in that way; and it is our opinion that, if lands which have come into the grip of the Board are settled by it, moneys that would thereby through settlement accrue from these lands would go into the hands of the Board, and be used by it for the purpose of paying for roads and improvements and other matters as provided for in the Bill. Well, it seems to us that, if the money is disbursed in those directions, it is very problematical if any would be left to divide among the original owners of the land. These are the reasons why we say we believe this Act will deprive us of our right and title to our own land. Now, I will refer to subclause (6) of clause 3 of the petition, " That by the proposals in the Bill a bare majority of Natives in a district, who may be unintelligent and incapable of managing their own affairs, may deprive a minority, who may be educated and capable, of any voice in the management of their own land." That is to say, we shall be prevented by this Act from carrying out our own customs; and our young people, who may have been educated at school and gained knowledge thereby, will be overruled and nave no voice in the matter. In fact, what that means is this : Firstly, we are prevented by this Bill from doing our best to improve our interests. Now, the felling of bush is a source from which revenue is derived by Natives, and we are prevented from doing that by this Bill; nor can we plant fruit-trees on our land, nor can we grow wheat, or oats, or potatoes, or crops of that kind. That is, we are prevented from using our best endeavours in our own behalf by this Bill. We are prevented from rearing cattle, sheep, pigs, horses, or any stock of that description by this Bill. That being so, what has been the object of educating our children, who have been educated at Government schools in order that they may become intelligent, and capable of undertaking the management of their own lands for themselves and for those who will come after them. 4. Hon. Mr. Carroll.] Have you noticed subsection (4) of section 18 ? —Yes; I shall have something to say as to that presently. I propose to go on as before. This is one of the provisions of the Bill to which we strongly object. Our petition is of this nature. Now, suppose a man had many interests in many large blocks, there is absolutely no means left open to that man under this Bill whereby he could, if he so chose, improve this land of his. I will cite myself as an instance. Even though the lands in my district may not be perhaps as valuable as those in other districts, in the Taupo district lam an owner in, say, ten blocks of land. I will say that out of the ten blocks, roughly speaking, four or five of them I wish to proceed with in improving forthwith, if it had not been for this Act—that is, lands that might be suitable for settlement, clearing, sheep-raising, or fruit-raising; but this Bill, as I understand it, will deprive me of my right in all the other blocks, and I shall only be permitted to utilise one of the ten blocks for my benefit. I should only be able to use one block ; I should be deprived of my interest in the other nine. Another of our objections