NATIVE TOWNSHIPS BILL.

King Country Chronicle, Volume IV, Issue 292, 7 September 1910, Page 2

NATIVE TOWNSHIPS BILL.

Position of Europeans. DEBATE IN THE HOUSE. On Friday night the House of Representatives debated the Native Townships Bill. The Hon. J. Carroll said that in many centres Europeans had built dwellings and business premises without any title. In consequence of this the Native Townships Bill of 1895 had been passed, and the Government took a number of areas totalling 3352 acres. Under the Act of 1902, four additional Native townships were proclaimed. The new Bill was to make the leases Glasgow leases. Power was also proposed to be taken for the Crown to j purchase the townships. Then tenants i could deal with the Crown, for the ] lands would be Crown lands. j Mr Herries( Tauranga) said that the j Crown could have purchased the town- ! ship lan-is before. Then again, there I was no compulsion on the boards to ! convert the leases into Glasgow leases. llf they liked they could grant any j other kind of lease. That was the j weak point in the Act. It was only j by purchasing the lands from the Naj tives and giving the tenants the freej hold title that the townships would 1 progress as they should. He hoped the Bill would be amended in the direction of allowing the lessees to buy from the lessors with the consent of the beneficiaries. There was no provision in the Bill for future townships. Spupose the Urewera Country contained gold, and townships sprung up there, how would they be provided for? Mr Herries asked if it was intended to carry out a systematic purchase of Native townships. The Hon. J. Carroll: We are buying t he Hnia Township now. Mr Field (Otaki) said that he wai disappointed to find that it was proposed to give the right of sale only to the Crown. Better results would be obtained under the freehold system. The Native owner of Parata Township in his district was prepared to sell, and the lessees were prepared to buy. Mr Jennings (Taumarunui) said that though the Bill was not all that could be desired it would meet the wishes of the majority of the people of Te Kuiti and Taumarunui. It would give more security to the progressive European trader. Until the past two years things were in a chaotic condition. Mr Massey said the proposals of the Bill were an improvement on the present conditions. That was not saying very much. He hoped that the Crown intended to purchase some of these lands within Native townships, because if they did not it was not much use passing this Bill. He went on to say that there was nothing in the Bill to make it compulsory on a board to give a Glasgow lease to a European tenant. For a city or town property the Glasgow lease was satisfactory. He saw no reason why a Native lessor should not be allowed to sell to the tenant provided that the bargain was straightforward and the Native was not leaving himself devoid of property. He would like to see a clause under which proposed sales should be referred to the Crown Land Board of the district to see that no injustice was done to the Native owner. Mr Kaihau (Western Maori) said he was not in sympathy with the Bill. Before it had been introduced it should have been referred to the Maoris and discussed by them. The Maoris* were absolutely tired of listening to the proposals introduced by the Government. He was not satisfied with the work of the Maori Land Board. The Maoris were quite competent to manage their own affairs. They would oppose the Bill. This was the thin edge and the point of the spear by which the whole of the Maori lands would be taken away. It behoved the Maori members to be particularly careful in giving their vote on the Bill lest they lost their seats. If the Maoris took the matter to the Home Government, it would decide that the House had no right to take away the rights of the Maoris to their lands. He would oppose the Bill to the end. The Hon. A. Ngata said that the danger of exploitation of the Native owners had to be obviated. In a number of matters Mr Kaihau was totally mistaken. Mr Kaihau wanted to see the Native lands dealt with by Maori committees. Dr Te Rangihiroa (Northern Maori) thought there was a tendency to force the freehold on the Maori people. This was an experiment, and if it was ; to be tried, why should it not be tried jon the European people. If it met I with satisfaction with the European, j then let it be applied to the Maori. ■ The Maori had been experimented on j quite enough. j Mr Pearce (Patea) said he knew a j good deal of the Maori, and his experi- j ence went to show that the present- j day Maori had deteriorated both phy- j sically and morally since he had been i sitting still and receiving rents. The j Maoris simply waited for six months ! for their rents, loafing about the race- j courses and hotels. Mr Pearce pro- j ceeded to criticise the Native Land | Boards at some length. The Hon. J. Carroll said the House 1 had treated his measure fairly, the j criticism having been of a reasonable j nature. There was no failure on the ! part of members to understand the I lines on which the Native policy pro- ! ceedad, but this did not apply to the j European policy. The Native policy [ had been kept on clearly defined lines, j He deprecated the everlasting cry ; about the Maori aristocracy. Could \ anyone finds ten Natives out of the j in this Dominion who came ! under the graduated land tax? j Mr Massey: "With £SOOO worth of j land?" Mr Carroll: "No, £40,000." It was no argument to allege a Maori aristocracy. Take the West Coast; some Natives received a few shillings a year, and it was a lucky man who received £2O a year. This was the aristocrat they were afraid of. The second reading was agreed to.