ORAKEI BLOCK DISPUTE

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 932, 27 March 1930, Page 11

ORAKEI BLOCK DISPUTE

Maori Claims Before Court

CROWN DEALINGS QUESTIONED

determination of the Tokerau Native Land Court to 1 reach the basis of the grievances of the Maoris concerning the Crown purchase of the Orakei Elock was instanced this morning by Mr. Justice Acheson. Talk of tapu law, the likelihood of purchase from trustees, and promises alleged to have been given for the return of areas, was made at the opening of the Court inquiry.

The inquiry was instituted by Par- ' liament after claims by Hira Pateoro.. and 16 others for the return of their i : papaltainga (home site) and the j • church site. About 40 acres are in ; dispute. Mr. J. J. Sullivan is repre ; 1 seating the claimants, Mr. Xgapipi ' Reweti and Mr. Otene Paora repre I . sent native interests, Mr. V. R. Mere | ditb and Mr. O. A. Darby are appear [ ii.g for the Crown, and Mr. Cocker j is appearing for the Church of Eng-! land. The purchase of the Crown land,! Mr. Sullivan said, had given consider- j able irritation and trouble to the | natives, in regard to the bona tides of the purchase according to the law! made by the Crown. It had bp"n; necessary for him to inspect certain; documents. He had required to in j speet all the Oralcei transfers since! the purchase began about 1012. When' he made this application befoie the, court, the Crown appeared to have, no objection, but he was now per ! mitted to see only the transfers relating to the flat area at Orakei I-Ie intended to asl; the assistance of the 5 court in gaining permission to in- i spect the transfers since 1012. He' had also asked for a list of all thej moneys the Crown said it had paid to the natives, but the Crown so far had failed to provide a list. It was stated that £70,08-1 had been paid to the natives, in cash or debentures, and the Government had also paid £33,679 to European lessees. RELEVANCE DENIED At this stage Mr. Meredith objected to Mr. Sullivan’s remarks on the ground that the commission did not have before it the purchase of the whole block. The statements were not relevant, and, Mr. Meredith said, no. answer in the present proceedings could, or would, be made. , The natives had been paid for the papakainga. “The area of the papakainga was not defined in the petition to the House," replied Mr. Sullivan. “I am not making wild statements. An enormous amount of money was paid to the natives, not through the Government office but, from evidence I have, through a private office in the City." The opinion that the settling of the question had been delayed too long was expressed by bis Honour. Any requests for adjournments would not be made at the suggestion of the court, which, now it actually had the dispute before it, wished to get to the bottom of the trouble. Mr. Meredith had somq justification in protesting against Mr. Sullivan's ! opening remarks. He would ask Mr. Sullivan to refrain from giving figures. Should he show the court that the main purchase affected the question before the court, Mr. Sullivan would be beard by the court. “ABANDONED OWN LAWS” Mr. Sullivan submitted that the Crown bad abandoned its own laws i in leaving the natives landless by the purchase of the whole block. One of the requirements of native land purchase was that scrupulous care should be taken to see that the natives were not left landless. This was particularly ruled under the Act of 1909, and • its amendments. The Native Land i Purchase Board was bound to- see that the natives were not left landless. A special promise, he said, had been made to Wiremu Watene, one of the largest owners, for the return of six acres at the top of Orakei, provided he signed a transfer. “That promise was dishonoured,” Mr. Sullivan said, “aud, by a process of sheer exhaustion, he lost the whole of his interest on the flat, too. This last purchase reflected little credit on those conducting it.” Mr. Meredith: Did he get the money? Mr. Sullivan: That is oi\e of the things I want to know. He referred to the probability of sales before the Government purchase. TAPU AND TRUSTEES The likelihood of Maori tapu law affecting the whole sale was raised by Oterje Paora. He asked: “Were the 13 names on the original list those of trustees Or owners? I have always contended that Orakei was tapu and 'the 13 names ] were of trustees, not owners. Ever | since 1904 we have been petitioning | Parliament to return Orakei to the three tribes, Te Taou, Ngaoho and Te ! Uringutu. If we start at the root of j the trouble, the top of the tree will die. I repeat that Orakei was tapu.” | Mr. Sullivan questioned the con- j fidential nature of the files of the j transfers, considering that Parliament, the highest court of the land, j had ordered the inquiry. If the trails- I fers were defective, the Government j should make good to the natives. j The court ruled that Mr. Sullivan j was entitled to bring evidence on any | promise made in respect to the return j of land in the main Orakei block, his ] Honour explained. The question had j a vital bearing on the future sales. ! if any agreements were on the Native ! Land Purchase files, they should be j produced to the court for inspection i by the parties. The court couid i not see that counsel for the natives j could peruse all the files, but portions j could he inspected under supervision, j FRESH PETITION If Mr. Sullivan wished to prove i that moneys had not been paid, the court somewhat reluctantly had to rule | that the question could not be raised j at the proceedings. A fresh petition !

would have to be made by the natives. .The court would hear evidence on any promise alleged to have been math I by purchase officers of the Crown. In this, it was advisable to have present all the officers concerned in the pur chase. Other points on which the court would hear evidence were the sug gestions of sales prior to the Crown purchase, sales by (provided those sales were before the Native Land Amendment Act, 1313, which allowed purchase from trustees), tapu rights, although it was improbable that the whole block had been “tapu-ed,” evidence on the chur-'di reserve and on alleged non-payments Landlessness did not mean landless ness in Oral: ? solely, but in all inter ests in New Zealand. His Honour proposed to inquire into the church reserve and trustee aspects in the afternoon. He repeated the court’s anxiety to judge the worth of frhe claims before the next session of Par liament. when, the natives could po - tion once more, were their claims proved. At the resumption of the hearing this afternoon, Mr. Sullivan traced the history of the church site. Its'area was four acres 36 perches, and in 1855. a trustee conveyed the land by deed of gift to the Crown. The land was given as a church s te, a burial ground and an endowment for a school for the benefit of the aboriginal inhabitants. The natives were in occupation still and had paid rates until 19.16. The church sold the land to the Crown for £I,OOO. ■ The land was morally the property of the Maoris and had merely been held -by the church in trust. (Proceeding.)