NATIVE LANDS SETTLEMENT.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XLVII, Issue 81848, 19 September 1906, Page 2

NATIVE LANDS SETTLEMENT.

debate in legislative COUNCIL, Per Press Association. Wellington, September 18. In the Legislative Council this afternoon the Hon. Mr MaeDonald resumed debate upon the Hon. Mr Ormond's notion for an extended return of Xative waste lands. He criticised the ipnthy of the Native Lund Department and the apathy of the people, especially in the South Island, respecting the question of dealing with Native lands It r was not the fault of the Maoris, who ' wore representative of five per cent of „ho population, but of the Europeans, representing 80 per cent, that millions )f acres were lying unutilised and rettftning nothing to revenue. Every Maori child had a right to share in this land, and he asked had not the European children a right to share in it also P The present position could ' not possibly continue To overcome the difficulty, the first process was. to sweep away the multitudinous Acts reflating to Native lands. Then every acre of land, the title to which had not been individualised, should be taken oyer by the Crown. A Commission should then report upon the value of ihe whole of the lands, and as to'what should be reseryed for residential purposes. Twonty acres would be sufficient for each. Native and one million acres would give this area to every Maori. That wonld leave between three and four million acres which ivere suitable for settlement tuid whioh would give a fair return to those who took up the land. When the was estimated, the Government should issne bonds through the Public Trust Office for the amount, which should remain in trust until the Maori titles were settled, and interest; should be given to the holders of land. He contended that the polioy of dealing with the Maori lands by. Maori Parliament and Maori Boards had proved a complete failure, and it was necessary to adopt a policy such as he had suggested to enable Europeans to/settle upon the available lands of the colony. He doubted, however, if the present Native .Minister would be able, owing to the peculiarities of his position, to give effect to such a polioy.

The Hon. Mahuta entirely agreed with Mr MaeDonald in his proposal for sweeping away the old Native Land Laws, and establishing new laws to enable the lands to be thrown open. The Hon. Mr Bigg, who considered tho motion by Mr Ormond had been brought down under false pretences, drew attention to the apparent ignorance of the' preyious speakers of the fact that a definite Native Land Policy had been outlined in the Budget—a better policy than that outlined bj .either the mover or Mr MaeDonald; It would, he said, bo impossible to deal ivith the whole question in ope measure.

The Attorney-General dpcbnpd to refer to the Hon. Mr Qrmond's fefet: ence to the general land policy, on thp ground that it was contrary to tlip Speaker's ruling tq do so. But on A'ative Land Ciucstion, lie stated Mr Ormond haJ. expressed approyaj of many points in the' land Act of Parliament, and had approved tho policy enunciated by Mr Seddon. lie defended tlie Native Minister from the accusation of apathy, and quoted statistics to show that a great deal had recently been done towards acquiring Native lands, and individualising titles. He had no objection to the motion, but it must be understood that in voting for, lie in no way subscribed to the views of the mover.

Mr Ormond having replied, the motion was carried on the voices.' . i •!> 1 v ! 1 . .1 V