15

X. oA.

Friday, 30th September, 1898. Mr. Te Heuheu in attendance : examination continued. 52. Captain Bussell.] I was asking you yesterday as to your objection to the Board proposed to be established under this Bill. You seemed to be in favour of a Board, but not of a Board with Europeans on it. Supposing a Maori Board were established for the administration of Native lands, what size would you suggest should be the area of land with which that Board should deal ? —I should let the Board deal with the whole of the five million acres of land which remain to the Natives, because what I understand by such a Board is a federation of the thirty-seven thousand people of whom I spoke, for whom the Board should act (a sort of amalgamation of the hapus), who should frame the laws under which the land is to be surveyed and subdivided, and provide for the necessities of those persons who are without land, while at the same time it would provide the means by which those who possess land might have their interests conserved. This assembly should have the right to look over and consider the desire of any person who might wish to sell or lease or otherwise dispose of his land —to decide whether it should be done. It is for that assembly also to decide whether it is necessary that the land should be surveyed and divided up among the various families and owners. 53. How many of these Boards do you think there ought to be ?—One. The pakehas have heard a lot about the kotahitanga, a sort of combined federation amongst the Natives, and then there is the Mahuta movement, which is another combination. I understand that this Board would be a sort of representative of them. 54. In other words, you would abolish the Native Land Court and set up a Maori tribunal instead?— Yes ; that is so. 55. If the decision arrived at by that tribunal were wrong, how would that be reviewed or repealed ?—lt would be for them to draw up laws, rules, and regulations for their own control and direction, and if they gave a wrong decision they would have to provide for the redress of any misfortune which might arise through their decision by making a law for such a contingency beforehand. 56. Have you any idea of what the cost of this would be ? —No ; I could not reply to that. 57. Who would pay for it ?—Part of the expense should be paid out of the £7,000 which is set apart year by year for the benefit of the Native people, and such other money as might be decided upon by this runanga Board as required to carry on the working of the system. 58. Was not that £7,000 set aside for the benefit of indigent Natives ?—This would still be used for the benefit of the Maoris. 59. Then, how would you propose to open up the land by roads so as to bring it into occupation? —Let the runanga ascertain and decide how it would be best to do that. 60. Where is the money to come from?— Give the power to mortgage to the runanga. 61. But your desire is that the land shall not be sold, and it is impossible to get a mortgage unless there is something to recover on ?—That is only as things now are. I think if the Board were once constituted and put into the exercise of its powers a means would be provided to meet all these necessities. 62. Supposing you cannot have a Board entirely of Maoris, would you prefer a Board of pakehas and Maoris, or would you have the individual rights of the Natives—in other words, which would you prefer, a Board with pakehas on it or absolute independence ?—What I am willing to agree to is what the kotahitanga decides upon. They should frame such laws and regulations as would prevent the lands passing away from the Natives. 63. Ido not wish to put you into any corner; I simply want to get an expression of opinion from yourself as to what ought to be done ?—Of course, what I say is this : that if the powers I ask to be given to this runanga are denied to it, then I do not know that there is anything else that I can agree to. 64. Then, you want the Maori Board or nothing ? Mr. Kaihau: I understand that what the witness said is that he wanted to see the members of this kotahitanga all Maoris, and that they should make such regulations as would control the land, and prevent wrongful sales, and so on. 65. Captain Bussell.] My object in putting my questions is this : We are trying to frame legislation for dealing with Native lands, and it is no use to suppose that Parliament will give power to a body of which it knows nothing. If the witness had a choice between a pakeha Board with Maoris and the individualisation of the titles of Natives which would he prefer?— What I say is this : I cannot see my way to say that I agree to any other arrangement than that which I propose, because, as I have already explained, successive Governments for years past have been legislating, as they say, for the benefit of the Natives, and the proof that that legislation has not been for their benefit is that most of their land has passed from them. 66. You objected to the Board as proposed under this Bill having the right to deal with succession, because, as you said, the Natives would be interested in that succession : is that the case ?—I will explain what I meant by that. What I said is this : that, as I understood the Bill, Boards would be constituted to operate within particular districts, and that two of the members of the Board would have to be men who owned land in that district, and of necessity these men must be interested parties in any question that came before them. I gather from the Bill that no Board can exercise power outside its own district. 67. I should like you to bring your mind back to the question of the constitution of Boards for moderate-sized districts, and then I would ask you whether, if there were these moderate-sized Boards, would it not be well to allow them to define the interests of the different hapus, and then let these hapus subsequently divide their interests amongst themselves?—l am sure that if the runanga is given the authority asked for, it will find out ways and means by which all these things can be done.