NATIVE LAND BILL.

King Country Chronicle, Volume VIII, Issue 623, 29 November 1913, Page 5

NATIVE LAND BILL.

SECIOND READING MOVED. OPPOSITION CRITICISM. [BY TKLHXJRAPir.—-rJUSSS ASSOCIATION.] Wellington, This Day In the House last night Mr Heiries moved'the second reading of the NaI tive Land 'Amendment Bill. He said there was a considerable difference in policy as compared with that of the previous Government. It was proposed to allow the Maori the right to take bis land out of the hands of the Maori Land Boards so that they could deal with them unfettered, but at the Bame time was intended to restrict the right of private purchase and increase that of the Crown. It has been found that to give private people greater rights than the Crown was not in the beßt interests of the natives. A greater judicial system was given to Maori Land Boards by amalgamating them with the Land Court, a judge presiding [over the new body. Partition was made easier by the instruction to the judge to report on any land suitable for partition. If no succession order was applied for within six monthß of the death of a native then it becomes the duty of the judge to make application, after due notice to all parties concerned. The limit of area held in future is 5000 acres as in case of Europlean land. The principal clauses were 104 and 105 giving the Crown greater power to purchase. His party always contended greater use should be made of vacant Maori land which was doing nothing but growing noxious weeds. His difficulty had been to find a syswould induce the Maori to voluntarily sell his useless lands and provide capital for buying horses and ploughs wherewith to cultivate his better land. He wbb not in favour of compulsory purchases, but thought the provision of clause 104 fair to both races as it allowed the Crown to purchase individual interests even in vested lands. Land so purchased would become ordinary Crown land, and in the case of vested lands the European tenant would have the right either to continue his lease or acquire the freehold at a valuation as provided in the Bill. There was, however, to be no compuhion on the native, and there was no possibility of a native becoming landless. Power was also taken to enable the Maori to lease his land to the Crown if he still desires to retain his mana over it. He thought the Bill an advance on existing legislation and it would be welcomed by the people of the North Island. Sir Joseph Ward deprecated tho desire to rush such an important Bill through at this late stage of the session. Members were not relieved of responsibility because the Native Affairs Committee had carefully considered the Bill. He pointed out that originally the Bill provided that trustees of an estate could sell the estate without reference to the beneficiaries Now it proposed to give the beneficiaries the right to sell without reference to trustees.There had never been such despotic power to enable the home of the Maori to be disposed of. He defended the work of the Maori Land Board, which had dealt with 450,000 acres by consent of the native. He condemned the proposal to give the Crown power to purchase the individual interests of natives, as when existing checks were removed the natives would be tempted to render themselves landless. The Bill was a measure to dispossess the natives even in case of trust estates, and parcel their land out amongst Europeans on the freehold principle. Mr Ngata quoted a speech made by Mr Herries in 1900 to show that as Minister he was not carrying out the policy he advocated as a private member. The Bill was a bad one and he could not support it. Behind the Minister was the greed of the pakeha, and this was their chance to get hold of native lands. The Bill increased the burdens of the natives in connection with the titles of their lands. The Minister libelled the natives when he said they had not expedited partition of the lands, when he well knew that the courts were not able to cope with the applications. The absence of compulsion was a delusion, because such influence could be brought to bear on the Maori which would induce him to part with the land more freely than if the land was taken, He proposed to move an amendment at a later stage in the direction of assisting the ratives to cultivate (heir uwn lands. Dr Pomare applauded the Bill for (!u- reriFon that it tended to abolish (lie communistic system, which would mean the death of the Maori's effort. H erein lay the preservation of the Dr To Rangihiroa and Mr Parata i 1(1 thrit the Bill meant the disposal t.f the natives land without the ! owners having a say in that disposal. ! The policy of the Government was to

deprive the natives of their lands, and allow them to starve in the Btreet. Sir James Carroll did not believe that the slightest advantage would accrue to native or European by the power taken in clause 104. The tremendous virtues of the Bill were heralded by the Government supporters, but when the changes were examined it would be found they were not [of a healing nature. The Government was obsessed with the idea of the freehold, and now and ever waß attacking native trusts which faßve always been regarded as sacred between the Crown and the natives. He favoured the Bill bo far as it was a machinery measure, but in policy the Bill was sinister in design, and spoliatory in effect. So far as it affected native reserves he would strenuously oppose it. Mr Herries briefly replied at 12.15 when a division was taken, the second reading being carried.