LAND UNDER MAORI MANAGEMENT

Te Ao Hou, July 1955, Page 6

LAND UNDER MAORI MANAGEMENT Maori Incorporations have been with us for almost forty years, but just lately they have rapidly grown in importance to a strong force in the farming and forest industry of New Zealand. They have become an efficient instrument for using profitably much of the lands and the forest still held by Maori owners in common. The success of Maori incorporations over the last generation has, just lately, enabled parliament to put the assets of the East Coast Trust, worth several million pounds, into the hands of 24 incorporations, which are being formed at the present moment. This article describes the place these incorporations occupy in Maori life today and in the New Zealand economy. In order to give the reader a closer look at the workings of these incorporations, the tale of the establishment of Maori management over the East Coast Trust stations will be told in some detail. This will provide an ending to the dramatic story of the East Coast Commission, of which the beginning was published in our issue of winter 1954. It is hoped this will satisfy readers who may have become a little impatient for the continuation of that story. For the material about the early history of the incorporations, we have to thank Mr W. T. Ngata, who compiled a wealth of facts, until now inaccessible, for the use of Te Ao Hou. The sea beats on all sides against Onenui station, on the northern tip of Mahla peninsula. The station, now controlled by its incorporated owners, was used for the cattle-drafting scene in the film ‘Broken Barrier’, (Pacific Films Photograph.)

The birthplace of the idea of Maori incorporations is on the East Coast. A group of people, anxious to initiate sheepfarming on Maori lands, formed a ‘Union of Ngati Porou Farmers’. It was chiefly this group which, in 1905, sponsored the election of Sir Apirana Ngata to Parliament; he was to be the man who would help formulate legislation to protect their land interests and incidentally the land interests of the Maori people generally. Meetings of the younger section of the people and their kaumatua were held all along the East Coast to propagate the principles of the Union, which were set out at length in an article in the Pipiwharauroa of March 1906. Utilizing Maori land was the union's most important purpose, and to achieve it, the Pakeha had to be convinced that the Maori was not lazy, had proved himself a good farmer, and needed government help for the development of Maori land. Members of the union were to make themselves familiar with their land titles. More articles followed in Pipiwharauroa on the raising of sheep. Ngati Porou elders were persuaded to raise money to give their sons an agricultural education, either by studying Pakeha practice or by going to agricultural colleges in New Zealand and Australia. The early years of the twentieth century saw wide tracts of land in the Walapu Valley and all along the Coast being cleared of bush, sown in grass and stocked. Much of this work (Ahikouka, Tikitiki, Marangairoa) was done by communal effort and such finance as was needed came from the meagre purses of the kaumatua and the philanthropy of such men as Samuel Williams, the founder of Te Aute College. The communal farms became financial and used their money and credit to develop further land. The need to have a financial organization behind the farms led to the establishment of the Waiapu Farmers' Cooperation. With the development of the farms the need grew for some form of security that could be offered to banks and commercial houses. This opened up the question of the land titles. They had to be either individualized or reduced to such form as to enable the owners to offer their land as security for mortgages. It was in this way that the idea of incorporations was born. As early as 1909, incorporations were made legal bodies by parliament (Maori Land Act. 1909). Some years ago, a count was made in the Gisborne office of the Department of Maori Affairs, and then there were 180 in the Tairawhiti district. Now this number would be somewhat higher. Other districts have adopted incorporations as a means of utilizing their land resources, one of the largest being the Puketapu Incorporation, a large timber concern of Ngati Tuwhareton. In the beginning, incorporations were family affairs; the owners would meet, make all the necessary decisions and do the work themselves. Gradually, this co-operative spirit lessened, and incorporations now often resemble private companies far more than communal enterprises. This has three main causes. First, owners of a block nowadays are hardly ever living together as community; they are more likely to be scattered all over the country. Secondly, incorporations often are big business now. This is true of giants like the Puketapu or the Mangatu Incorporations and many others. Such businesses are complex and vast sums of money are involved. Work is so longer communal but done by paid labour. The difficult tasks of management and keeping of accounts have passed into the hands of paid servants. Thirdly, owners are becoming legal-minded. They want to be sure of having a proper say and insist on proper machinery. If they are dissatisfied they bring in lawyers. The modern type of incorporation often achieves a high degree of business efficiency. Speaking of the representatives of the present Committees of Management of what were once the East Coast Trust lands, an insider like Mr R. F. Gambrill has stated: ‘I have been more than

impressed with their business acumen and ability I doubt whether any group of Europeans similarly placed and selected could have shown a more intelligent grasp of the problems nor have afforded more constructive criticism and help’. Some incorporations have failed, but it is open to question whether the percentage of failures is any greater than those of European companies over the same period, or whether irregularities under the one are any more prevalent than under the other. Trading banks have financed the Maori incorporations for many years. Principal causes of failure have been poor accounting and secretarial administration, struggles for power among conflicting factions and assumption of power by dominant personalities. In European companies similar tendencies of course exist.