REPORT OF THE TAIRUA INVESTIGATION COMMITTEE.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4543, 12 October 1875, Page 2

REPORT OF THE TAIRUA INVESTIGATION COMMITTEE.

The select committee appointed to inquire into the whole of the circumstances connected with the acquisition and transfer to the provincial administration of the Tairua and Pakiraahi locks in the province of Auckland, and of all dealings whatsoever therewith by either the Colonial or Provincial Governments up to the present date, have the honor to report as follows:

1. The Tairua block of 36,000 acres was conveyed by the natives to the Queen on the 7th December, 1872, without any reservation being expressed in the body of the lease, except of certain timber rights to which the committee will presently allude. 2. The purchase of this block from the natives was completed as stated by the Native Minister. It was one of the small blocks reported on by Mr. Preece, in respect of which the recommendation required by the Immigration and Public Works Act Amendment Act had been made by the provincial authorities. 3. On the 24th June, 1874, the Tairua block was proclaimed waste land of the Crown, subject to be dealt with in accordance with the land laws for the time being in force for the province of Auckland. No reservation was notified in this proclamation. On the 25th July, 1874, Mr. Mackay wrote a letter to the Provincial Government, stating that there was a reserve of a thousand acres at Tairua, not yet defined on the ground. On the 15th July, 1874, the conveyance of the Tairua block from the natives to the Queen was registered. On the 14th April, 1875, the surveyor appointed by the Provincial Government reported the desirability of reserving the available site for a township in the Tairua block. On the 10th May, 1875, the Provincial Government heard that this same town site was to be reserved on behalf of the natives, and Mr. Mackay did not report the selection of this reserve until after this survey had been made ; and on the 2nd July, 1875, the, Provincial Government first learned positively that it had been selected by the natives as their reserve of 1000 acres in the Tairua block, and that the natives had leased it to an interpreter named Guilding, in Mr. Mackay’s employment. He (Mr. Guilding) had had full knowledge of the transactions connected with this reserve, from the signing of the original deed, assigning the Tairua block to the Queen. Mr. Guilding, it appears, subsequently admitted Mr. O’Halloran, another clerk in Mr. Mackay’s employment, as a partner in this lease.

4. It appears that Mr. Mackay was not cognisant of this transaction prior to its completion, and he states in evidence that he expressed his. disapproval of it. . 5. Mr. Guilding was an interpreter, and Mr. O'Halloran a clerk engaged, paid by Mr. Mackay, both in his public and private business.

6. The committee is of opinion that the leasing of the reserve by persons employed by Mr. Mackay, and, presumably, with special information on the subject not accessible to the public generally, is open to the gravest objection. 7. The facts relating to the acceptance by Mr. Crippen, a clerk of Mr. Maokay’s, of a share in the prospector’s claim are as follows: 8. The prospectors requested their agent, Mr. W. A. Graham, to offer a share in this claim to Mr. Mackay, the General Government agent. Mr. Graham did so, and Mr. Mackay refused to accept it, giving as his reason that it would perhaps be made use of against him in his official capacity. Mr. Mackay was then asked if he would like to give it to Mr. O'Halloran. He objected to .Mr. O’Halloran, receiving it, as he was connected with him by marriage ; ! but he suggested that Mr. W. A. Graham might give, it Mr. Crippen, who had been a faithful servant of his. The share was accordingly given to Mr. Crippen, and subsequently, as appears from O’Halloran’s evidence, the share was divided equally between Mr. Mackay’s two clerks, Mr. O’Halloran and Mr. Crippen. 9. It appears from documents before the committee that this share was very shortly afterwards sold for the sum of about £2OOO. Mr. O’Halloran acknowledges that he received £7OO or £BOO for his half share.

10. Mr., Maokay states positively that he himself was not interested in the claim direct or indirect. 11. The committee consider that this transaction was highly 1 improper, and that while, Mr. Mackay declined the share himself, he should have peremptorily refused to allow any of the persons in his employment to accept it. The terms upon which Mr. Mackay was employed in the purchase of the Tairua and other blocks are entered in the correspondence between him and the Public Works department in the, year 1873, and subsequently in papers laid on the table this year (o No. 3.) From the Ist August, 1869, till January, 1872, Mr. Maokay had been, engaged in. business negotiations with private individuals, under which he had arranged for acquiring certain rights to timber, and it was made a condition of his undertaking the acquisition of these landsfor the Crown, that the arrangements for the timber which he had previously made on behalf of private individuals should bo respected. Under this engagement the Provincial Government have acquired, about 150,000 acres of land, but the timber for the moat part has passed into the hands of private individuals, by leases extending over a period of from twentyone to ninety-nine years. 13. The prospect of laud being required for goldmining purposes seems to have influenced the Government in making an arrangement which would otherwise have little if anything to recommend it as productive of public benefit. 14. Your committee is of opinion that it ought not to have been left to the land purchase agent, considering his previous relation to those transactions, to determine the nature , and extent of those rights of private persons which the Government had authorised to be respected.

15. It is clear to the committee that the equity and value of such rights as have no legal sanction should, in this and all future cases, be the subject of investigation by some independent tribunal, and some new means should now be taken satisfactorily to adjust the claims to timber the title to which may require validation, and to settle upon a per. maneut basis the respective rights of the holders of these leases and of the public. .16. The committee, while recognising the difficulties which the Government had to encounter in establishing the Land Purchase department, is of opinion that the state of things which, as shown by the evidence, exists, is not an unnatural result of the anomalous position occupied by somo of the purchasing agents, Thu3,Mr.Mackay stands in a singularly

undecided position. At one time he is admittedly a Government officer, at another he claims to be in an independent position, conducting land

"" —i-rtrnidqinrt. purchases for. the liovernmem, u, In his employment, and standing in a confidential position towards him, Messrs. O’Hallorau and Crippen have the opportunity of taking part in Government laud purchase business, and are in a position to ascertain the intentions of the Government, and have access to the Government records ; and yet at the same time they are not in any way under the control of the Government.

17. The committee consider that the engagement of persons on such conditions is inconsistent with the public interest, and they recommend that in future all persons employed by the Government as agents for the purchase of land, no matter whether paid by salary or commission, and all persons in their immediate employment, should be taken to be Government officers, and be subject to the ordinary rules of the Civil Service.

18. Finally, the committee express their opinion that the general effect of the evidence is to create a feeling of distrust in the administration of the Laud Purchase department, and to render it necessary that strong measures should be taken to purify the system, and remove from it those elements which, as shown by the evidence taken with respect to some of the agencies, are likely to bring discredit on the public service. IS). With this view legislation will be necessary. As the law affecting the purchase of native lands now stands, and in view of the power which the Government has to intercept or prohibit private negotiations, the public generally refrain from entering upon private purchases, knowing the difficulty of completing them without the consent, taeid or expressed, of the Government. This has already in some instances, as shown by the evidence, subjected officers of the department to solicitations from private parties on various grounds to allow them to complete and sometimes to assist them in completing private transactions. 20. The committee consider that the law should be altered, so as either to re-establish the Crown’s right of pre-emption, or else to permit the direct purchase system to have full sway. 21. The committee are also of opinion that the purchasing or leasing of private lands, directly or indirectly, to their own interest or advantage, or for other persons, by Government officers or agents whose duty it is to purchase native lands for the public, is contrary to the public interest ; and that it should be an instruction to persons employed in the Land Purchase department to refrain, on pain of dismissal from the public service, from being concerned in such transactions in the future.

22. Under the second order of reference of Friday, August 27, your committee have taken a large amount of evidence on oath of the most conflicting character. Upon this they do not feel that they can arrive at any decisive or satisfactory, conclusion. They have directed it to be appended to this report. (Signed) G. Grey, Chairman.