Could Tribal Ownership Have Been Maintained?

Te Ao Hou, October 1956, Page 10

Could Tribal Ownership Have Been Maintained? So we come to to-day's position. The great part of Maori land has been sold. Of what is left a great deal is broken and poor in quality, and much is difficult to deal with owing to badly shaped sections and a multitude of owners. Our question is whether some other system of titles could have been used which would have prevented all these difficulties, and which would perhaps have encouraged, at a much earlier stage the farming by the Maoris of their land for their own benefit. Many people think this would have been possible if some system of ownership nearer to the tribal system had been carried on by the laws and the Maori Land Court, rather than the giving to each person of a distinct share which he could deal with himself. The issue between the communal type of title

and the individualised title is not a new one. It has been argued almost from the beginning by different people interested in the administration of Maori land. In the report of the Native Land Laws Commission of 1891, the question is discussed to some extent but not in a very constructive way. The majority report, by W. L. Rees, M.H.R., and James (later Sir James) Carroll, M.H.R., expressed vague bankering for the days when all sales were carried on in public by the natural leaders of the tribe and “when the Maori chief was a gentleman”. But the report is really concerned mainly with ease and convenience in alienation, more than anything else, although considerable thought is given to the providing of safeguards against unfairness to Maori settlers. The report is not particularly impressive, on the whole, bearing indications that it is mainly the work of Rees, who was something of an amateur political economist. He has, of course, a particular interest in connection with Maori land since he was largely concerned with the promotion of the Native Land Settlement Scheme on the East Coast, which if it had not been for the intervention of Government at the eleventh hour, would have resulted in the loss by many Maoris of the East Coast of the greater part of their land. However, the report did serve to draw attention to the complex and inconsistent web of legislation, and the separate memorandum by Carroll is remarkable for its discussion of the need to assist Maoris by training and finance to farm their lands for themselves. An example of an individual Maori farm holding owned by Mr Crewther of Waimana, near Taneatua. This farm carries a high-producing herd in excellent order. (National Publicity Studios Photograph) All the argument has been as between the individual and communal type title. Would the retention of a communal title have helped the farming of the land by the Maoris themselves at an earlier stage? There are some indications this way. In certain districts especially, particularly in the early 1850's, considerable quantities of produce were provided by Maori communities for sale to Europeans—usually sent to the cities or towns by coastal shipping, frequently owned by Maoris themselves. Wheat, maize, potatoes, fruit, pigs, kumaras were produced as it seems by something approaching the old communal system. In the old records of the Native Office one comes time and time again across references to the giving of a plough, a horse, a mill (often a steel hand mill but occasionally a water-powered mill) or seed to various chiefs (i.e., to them and their tribes or hapus), or the loan of moneys to buy some of these things. Small ships as well, should be included in the list. A thrifty people could perhaps expand their activities from their profits but it must be remembered that the Maoris were quick to desire the warmth and smartness (?) of European clothes; the relish and softness of European foods and tobacco and drink, to purchase (even for peaceful purposes) guns and ammunition and a hundred and one other things. So long as settlers were pouring into the country to be fed, and the pattern of New Zealand farming had not as yet settled itself, when white farmers were “mixed farming” and feeding themselves before producing a saleable surplus, the crops of the Maoris sold. But once farmers began to specialise, the market for Maori goods contracted and they

could no longer get for their relatively poor produce the prices which formerly induced their energy. It is to be noted, too, that a strong market has been created for all food produce by the Californian and Australian gold rushes. When this extraordinary demand ceased prices dropped heavily both in Australia and New Zealand. Meanwhile, the good lands were diminishing fast, by sale. It may be that the rate of sale was too fast, but it is plain nonsense to blink the fact that the pressure to sell was irrestible. Once let settlement commence and the rest had to come.