The New Zealand Times. FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 1913. WHERE IS THE REFORM?

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVII, Issue 8360, 21 February 1913, Page 6

The New Zealand Times. FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 1913. WHERE IS THE REFORM?

It is marvellous ’with what rapidity the curses of the self-styled Reformers, directed so recently and with so much bitterness against the Liberal and Labour Government, are coming homo like, chickens to roost. The Liberal Administration is being steadily vindicated, and, remarkably enough, the justification is finding enthusiastic utterance from the tongues of the most uncompromising of their political opponents. The most recent and telling illustration is furnished by the Hon. W. H. Berries. If there was one department more than another that was held up to public opprobrium, in the period of misrepresentation and slander, as a nest of corruption and infamy,- it was unquestionably that of Native Affairs, this was the department that the Hon. W. H. Hemes was going to purify and reform. The new broom was going to sweep very clean. There was to be no more corruption, the rights of the Maoris were going to be protected, and native lands were going to pass from their owners only for the purposes of legitimate settlement. Great changes were to be effected in the administration, dark and. sinister bints were thrown out about the Maori Land Boards and their' operations, and Purity, which had never existed previously, was to reign supreme. And what has the Hon. W. H. Hcrries, kind, amiable, and easy-going soul, done to redeem his promises P If the policy previously was one of “taihoa,” that policy has been intensified, except in the important particular that the natives have been assisted to part With their lands as rapidly as But to whom? To the Government, in the interests of land• settlement? Most certainly not.- To'the legitimate settler? Not by any means. To the land speculator, otherwise the land shark> who trades to sell again only at a big profit, and who doesn't know a plough from a disc harrow ? . YeS, this is the individual> who ia Ming assisted to make hay while the sun shines. There have been .no changes in the department, no attempt at reform, no exposure of corruption, no enforcement of the principles of greater purity, no attempt to buy the land from the native owners at a fair price in the interests of the State. The active policy of the department is to individualise the titles, make it easy for the Maoris to divest themselves of their land to the first speculator who comes along at whatever price is offered, and the last and most-forgotten consideration is to protect the Maori owner. It is a matter of common knowledge that the land speculator is busy in the native districts throughout the whole of the North Island, and that large areas of valuable Maori land are passing at bagatelle prices—-not to the settler, not to the Government, but to the speculator who may be a lawyer, or a land agent, _ or anything but a cultivator of the soil. _ It ia all very sad. And what of the Minister , whose eye was fixed so intently on the corruption he was going to “reform,” and whose dark hints concerning Maori Land Boards were supposed to be pregnant with ; such significant and reassuring meaning? ’ The Hon. W. H. Berries addressed an assemblage of natives on "Wednesday at Jerusalem, when, we are told, he acknowledged “ the good work that had been done by .all the Maori Land 'Boards.” So, it amounts to this then, that the boards have all been doing good work, and there is nothing further to say. Then, what about “ Reform ” assertions on the election platform ? What about, the criticism of Sir James Carroll, his “taihoa” policy, and his alleged maladministration P Was it all unfounded? Mr Hemee ? We are. further informed, foreshadowed > legislation to enable the natives to get their titles more easily and cheaply. Is this in the interests of the Maoris or the land sharks? Wo leave the Minister to supply the answer. But wo would suggest, m the light of what is happening now, that there was a great deal to say for Sir James Garros’s policy of “make haste slowly” with regard to the disposal of native land. Sir James has always been conscientiously opposed to too hasty sacrifice of native land*; be has been resolutely determined that the Maoris should not bo left landless and that they should get a fair price for what paned; and his policy has been that the State should purchase from them rather than the speculator. These are the only respects in which changes have been made in the administration, and, we would suggest, the changes have not been in the best interests of the Maoris. Sir James Carroll has taken this further view that every legitimate settler who acquires native land for the purposes of cultivation adds to the productiveness and wealth of the Dominion, while, on the other hand, every speculator who acquires such land with the object of exacting toll or making profit out of the eventual cultivator penalises industry and is a tax upon and hindrance to settlement. If this is “tadhoa” poKcy, it merits approval rather than condemnation, but it will win no sympathy from the all-powerful land shark. It may he argued, in interested quarters, that the rights of the Maoris are be-

ing protected. Well, by way of illustration, let us refer to one example which is dealt with in the latest Gazette Law Reports for native matters. It is a case where a board confirmed an alienation in September last. The price of the sale from the Maoris was £lO per acre, but, significantly enough, the Government valuation was £lB 5s per acre. Another conveyance to other purchasers was before the board at £lB per acre. The case having been heard, the purchase by the parties giving £lO per acre was sustained, and consequently the matter was carried to the Supreme Court. Wo propose to quote the comments of the Judge in the higher court because they constitute a telling indictment of the system that is in existence of hastening the sale of native lands. This is what the judge said; "It is significant that the President of the Board has preserved complete silence in his affidavit with regard to the transfer to Lawler, and the price to be paid under it was £lB per acre. The Government valuation is £lB 5s par acre. The question is whether this Court has jurisdiction to interfere with the Board’s decision. A Board which, confirms a ealo at £lO an acre when the existing valuation is £lB ss, and where there is before it what appears to be a bona fide offer of £lB par acre, takes upon itself a heavy responsibility, and exposes itself to grave suspicion of having betrayed the very interest which, it was established to protect.” It has been asserted, but wo cannot say with what truth or otherwise, that since this sale was confirmed at £lO per acre the land has again changed hands at £23 per acre. If this is a fact, it emphasises the necessity for greater protection of the Maoris even in the form of a “taihoa” policy. However, we invite Mr Harries to thoughtfully consider the comments of this judge, and, having done so, to say whether he is still as warm as ever in his approval of the good work that is being done by all the Maori Laud Boards. Anyhow, what about the “reform” that was promised?