SPEECH OF MR R. HOBBS.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume XI, Issue 1347, 25 August 1883, Page 2

SPEECH OF MR R. HOBBS.

NATIVE LAND ACT AMENDMENT DEBATE. | The following is a somewhat condensed re- | port of Mr Hobb’s speech, which we would like to have published in full, but a demand on our space has precluded this ; — Mr. Hobb#.do not wish to see this debate close without saying a word or two on the question, and in doing so I take the opportunity of congratulating the House on the changed aspect of affairs, oven during the last twelve months. I venture to say it this Bill had been introduced last session it would not have been received us it has been this session. Furthermore, I may congratulate the Native Minister on the manner in which this Bill has‘been received by the Native members. They have unanimously spoken in favour of it, and we may take that as a murk of their confidence. Their speeches generally show that they have awoke up at last to the fact that the Government of this country have their interests at heart. Sir, the question of Native lands has at all times been one that has given very great concern to the legislators of this country. I may say that it has been the cause of almost ail our troubles and difficulties, but those troubles and difficulties have not arisen from the Natives, but from the Europeans. Ido not wish to go back to the wretched past. It would be useless, and worse than useless, to do that. But I cannot help remarking on the extraordinary speech of the Jion. member for Mount Ida last night. lie did not give us his own experience, but he went tar back and criticised the action of past Governments, and of members of this House, There are many members of this House now who were members then, and I may say they took a deep interest in the Native land question, and there are still many hon. gentlemen here who not only take a deep interest, but have a deep interest in that question. I think I may sum up his speech of last night as a defence of the New Zealand Native Land Settlement Company, and of himself as secretary of that institution. Mr DeLautouk : I am not secretary of it.

Mr Hobbs ; I beg the hon. gentleman’s pardon. He was formerly secretary of it, and I thought he was still. I can only say that the one portion of his speech which 1 agreed with was that in which he said that he would support this Bill. In speaking on the question he took the opportunity of going very minutely icto the question of the Native Land Company, and told us the Company had acquired fifty thousand acres of land ; that they had sold some portion of suburban land at £l’2 an acre, and of rural land at £‘2 an acre, but he did not tell us—nor will he attempt to deny—that the Natives have been induced to convey the freehold of many blocks of their land to that company, and have in return the greenbacks, and nothing else, of that company to show tor it at present. Seeing the hon. gentleman opposed the proposition to refer the petition re that company’s Bill back to the Committee as requested by the Native Minister, I was surprised that he went into the subject at all here. The object of the Bill now before the House, as 1 understand it, is to prevent trafficiug with Native lands before they have passed through the Native Land Court. In my place in this House on more thap

occasion In the past I have spoken strongly j on this point. I have urged this matter, and have said to the Native Minister that ! unless lie brought in some proposition of the i kind which is now submitted to the House the illegal practice of trafficiug in Native lands would never be stopped. He admitted that, but he said the House would never pass it. I think ho may congratulate himself that the House will pass it this session. I must, however, differ with him on one point, and must say that I agree with the honourable member for Auckland East, that the Bill does not go far enough. I believe the Native members also agree with me in that, Severe cases require severe remedies, and it would be well to include a clause in the Bill which will not only impose a fine, but provide that there shall be imprisonment for dealing with Native lands unlawfully. I venture to say that will have far more effect than any sum of money in the shape of a fine which you may impose. Another quo-tion which has been raised is, that of the resumption by the Government of the sole right to direct purchase of Native hinds, or what is called the “ pre-emptive right” of the Government to purchase Native lands. That sounds very well but the Nanve Minister knows just us well ns I do that it would be an impossibility. L’he country would never stand it, and the Natives themselves would never submit to it. They claim to be British subjects and to have the same rights with us. and I am quite certain that the effect of such a proposition would be very unsatisfactory There is one other matter which I consider a grave matter In connection with this Bill—namely, the point raised by the honourable member for Kangitikei, in respect to past transactions in Native land. lam not here to def nd those transactions lam not interested directly, or indirectly, in them, and I am quite prepared to admit that many of those transactions will not bear the light of day, but still there are many of these transactions which have been carried out|with the complete cognizance of the Government. . . I need not express any opinion on the question of the employment of lawyers in the Courts. We hud that matter thoroughly discussed before the Native Affairs Committee where we have been fairly deluged with petitions upon the question, so that I think the House will be able to form a very good opinion of what the Native mind is upon that point. I must confess that I was somewhat surprised with the remraks made by the honourable member for Auckland East in criticising the speech of the Native Minister because I have before me the honourable gentlemen’s own Bill which contains similar provisions to those of the Bill before us, and if he thought those other clauses which he spoke of to-night should have been brought before the House why do they not appear in ■is own Bill? It would have been very much better if he had 1 will not weary the House with any further remarks, I intend to support the Bill and I hope to see it carried by a large majority.