TRIBAL LANDS

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 8, Issue 38, 9 January 1945, Page 6

TRIBAL LANDS

BAY OF PLENTY AREA

MAORI CLAIMS REVIVED

A far-reaching review of unsettled claims to confiscated lands of the Maori people of the Bay of Plenty will be undertaken when a Royal Commission which the Government has declared itself ready to set. up undertakes its duties-. Recently there has been a constant procession of tribal representatives to petition Parliament for the restoration. of or compensation for, some part of the 447,000 acres seized by the Grown in the Arawa country following the killing of two missionaries j at Opotiki and Whakatane respectively, in 1865. This was not by any means the first, nor the last occasion on which tribal lands were declared to be forfeited through the acts of members who had resisted the authority of the Queen. The Act of Parliament under which the Bay of Plenty areas were taken was ? the New ( Zealand Settlement Reserves Act of 1863 ■ which merely gave the Government the right to- take land for settlement purposes. Although the acts of provocation as far as> the Arawa people were concerned occurred subsequent!}* to the passing of this, measure, the ojiinioii has been expressed both by the Maoris and pa'keha protagonists that this legislation one of the shortest Acts * passed by that Parliament, was the carefully fashioned legal weapon that, was to be used with just such an eventuality in mind. In earlier claims for the restoration of confiscated land eminent 9 counsel made the point that under the common law of England the penJ9iiq.o jo .xapjnui joj able offence does not extend to the property of the offender still less to that of relatives. It was claimed, that as the actual murderers and their associates had been dealt with by law their tribal associates at a distance sliMd not have been involved in any form of blanket penal tj T . The procedure adopted in sifting these compensation claims concedes the right, to any individual or group] to petition Parliament. These peti-! tions are surveyed by tlie Native Affairs Committee of the House which has access to all particulars previously secured by the Native Department. Unless a claimant has a well-documented case, backed by historical records of liis sub-tribe 7 he has little chance of success. Ten petitions directly arising from the alleged loss of landed property through the Bay of Plenty confiscation have been presented. A claim having been admitted, the next question to be resolved is

the form in which it is to be grant-* ed. Sentiment is usually in favour of the restoration of a parcel of land as near as possible, to the original pa but as in most that is impossible because of the close settlement of the coastal district, there, is still a considerable area of Crown land in the country concerned that could be made over to successful petitioners, or a sum of money could be placed on trust for the benefit of the heirs of the dispossessed oAvners. In this connection it may bts recalled that a composition was made about five years ago of the claims of the tribes of. the but the. amount awarded was deemed inadequate by them and they refused to accept it* That matter still a\A r aits settlement.