Greymouth Evening Star, AND BRUNNERTON ADVOCATE. THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1901. GREYMOUTH NATIVE RESERVE.

Greymouth Evening Star, Volume XXXI, 26 September 1901, Page 2

Greymouth Evening Star, AND BRUNNERTON ADVOCATE. THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1901. GREYMOUTH NATIVE RESERVE.

Last night’s meeting of leasees on the Greymouth Native Reserve was far from being satisfactory. The proposals were crude; the position of affairs only looked at from one standpoint—that of the leasees’ interests ; and the meeting was divided into sections having different ideas. The Mayor was the first to formulate proposals and endeavour to bring the leasees together, and his object was a most laudable one, but after last night’s experience it is quite evident that the outcome of his efforts on this occasion will be abortive • After much discussion the following resolution was ultimately agreed to in a well “ its not-much-good-and-ean’t-do-much-harm sort of feeling :—“ That this meeting of leaseholders is of opinion that it is advisable to approach the Government in order to procure a fixity of rents to the individual holder.” Of course if Parliament could be got to agree to such a proposal, and agree that for all time the present rentals shall be maintained, it would be a fine thing for present holders. But this will never be done. The position is this. The Public Trustee—which really means in this case the Government, and behind the Government, Parliament ; are trustees acting between the Native owners of the reserve on the one hand and the leasees on the other. As trustees they are bound to protect the rights of both parties—for landlord and tenant have rights. The proposal only means to protect the leasees. The Native owners it is admitted do not draw excessive rentals, and it is not in the ordinary course of events that they, knowing rents at present are reasonable, will forgo their right to at least a portion of the advantages accruing through the natural advancement of the town and district. It is idle to say it is the Europeans who are making the advancement,' so long as Europeans holding land in all parts of the colony are allowed—as is the case at present—to reap the unearned increment. The law that allows the European to reap the enhanced value on his land consequent upon .expenditure of public money, settlement, and development must also be allowed to the Maori, and no government dare attempt to make a distinction There are various ways in which the Reserve might be treated. Firstly, for the individual holder to buy his section right out and obtain freehold. But this'proposition did not meet with approval, as it was shown that such proposal would not be advantageous at the present moment. This view of the question was put very clearly by Mr. Sheedy, who quoted his own section, the freehold of which was valued at £SOO. This sum at 5 per cent—a low rate of interest—meant £25 per annum. Now, as he was only paying £l6 per annum, the acquiring of the freehold meant an annual loss to him of £9. Here, at

ail events, was evidence that the Trust was a fair landlord. The second way of dealing with the land would be to municipalise it—that is, for the Borough to purchase the Native interest and become the landlord. By this means the reserve in time could be rented to the holders at a much lesser rental than now. But, although the advantage of this scheme in the future is undoubted, giving as it would absolute right of renewal at a low rent, it possesses the disadvantage of nossible increases for years to come.' If the reserve was municipalised, the Borough authorities would have to raise a loan for such purpose, with a sinking fund attached. The interest and sinking fund would have to bo borne by the leasees, and this would mean at least an annual charge of £5,000 or £1,500 more than is at present being paid. When the loan was extinguished by the sinking fund, which would be in about 42 years, the rents could then be reduced for a mere nominal figure. This proposal, though good for posterity, though beneficial to the borough, and assuring a certainty of renewal to tenants, has the serious drawback of present increased payment, and therefore cou'd not meet with approval from leasees who consider the present, perhaps more than the future, and who study the position of their own individual holding rather than the interests of the whole, for all time to come. We are therefore brought back to the questions : Is the present tenure a good one, and are the lessees fairly secure. To these two queries the reply must be : If we do not want a freehold , if we object to municipialice the reserve, then we have the next best form of occupation, in which the leasees, so long as the present Act remains, are fairly well protected.