WEST COAST RESERVES

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIV, Issue 283, 27 May 1912, Page 4

WEST COAST RESERVES

1 COMMISSION OF INQUIRY. SITTING INHAWERA. The West Coast Reserves Commission continued its sitting in Hawera on Friday, when Mr. Bell opened his case for the natives. COUNSEL'S ADDRESS. Mr. Bell, in opening, said: Firstly, this confiscated area was taken under the New Zealand Settlement Act of 1863. In 1879 there was an inquiry into the. native lands, as a result of which an Act was passed in which it was recited that the natives alleged that the promises made to them by the pakeha with regard to the giving* back of the land were unfulfilled. A commission was appointed to inquire into the whole position. As the result of the Commissioner's report in 1880, the West Coast Settlement (North Island) Act was passed. By section 3 of that Act the Governor was empowered to settle all claims and engagements, and to issue Crown grants. If the Commission- : ers turned to the reports of the Commission they would see that not only had wo made promises to the natives, and which were never fulfilled, but we had under the Act of 1803 actually taken lands which we had already 'granted to certain natives in return for supporting us in connection with the trouble with the Maoris. The Department re cognised those obligations bv setting up a commission to settle them. The restriction of alienation, which it was inj tended to put upon a certain' class of the | reserves was, firstly, "not for the benefit of the pakeha, but,for the protection of the Maori." It was intended that we should pay our debts to the Maoris, and that payment should not be a mere show, and that the native should be protected from the pakeha speculator. I The West Coast Settlement Reserves j Act of 1881 v .p|escribed how the Maoris were to be protected. We admitted we I had not fulfilled* our obligations to the I natives, and under the Act of 1881 it ! was prescribed how those obligations I were to be carried out. The Maori ac- | cepted that position, and as a result the I differences between the Maoris and the j pakehas, which had for years disturbed the tranquillity of Taranaki, were at an end. He asked the Commissioners to remember the whole of the transaction was the fulfilment of our obligations. In order to ensure that the Maoris should get every benefit of the payment which | we made them, we constituted ourselves trustee for the natives, and the Pnblic Trustee was made the agent of the nation for the earning out of this trust. The Act of 1881' showed that the Public Trustee had to administer the business of the reserves for the benefit of the natives, and for the promotion of settlement. Promotion of settlement, he I contended, was necessary for the benefit of the natives. One had to get white tenants to work the land for the natives, so that they could get full advantage of these lands. It showed that there was to be no absolute jight of renewal, and under the regulations the lease made provision for compensation foi- improvements of a certain character up to £5 per acre; and he pointed out that the regulations were, to a certain extent, as far as the improvements were concerned, ultra vires. The amending Act of 1883 gave power to lease for 30 years, and it gave the Governor-in-Council power to prescribe the nature and extent of the compensation for improvements. This, he claimed, was a departure from the arrangements, wftich, he had said, had settled the difficulties in Taranaki. It was unreasonable to suppose that this departure was to defraud the natives; that was not suggested. The departure from the original arrangement with the natives must have been because it was found impossible to get tenants prescribed by the Act of 1881. That fact suggested, at any rate, that some of the intended tenants had gone fully into tie question and had come to the conclusion that they could not take up land unless they could get compensation of at least £5 an acre in respect of certain improvements; it also suggested that the State, having regard' to the fact that it was trustee for the native, had come to a conclusion as to what were fair terms as to getting tenants on the land. Now, at this stage the leases were taken up, and the actual bargain entered into was that the lease was to be for 30 years, and that there was to be no right of renewal, and that the improvements were to be limited in character to £5 per acre. In 1887 there was n reduction in rent, made under the authority of an Order-in-Council, and not only was the Public Trustee given power to reduce the rent to tenants who made a statutory declaration that they could not afford to pay the then present rents, but to reduce the interest of rents in arrears, which was reduced from 15 per cent to 5 per cent. That Order-in Council was quite obviously ultra vires; it was not validated by the Acts which were passed later on. If the reduction in interest was intended to refer to rent which should in future be in arrear, surely it was unnecessary, because the rent was to be reduced. If the reduction to which he had already referred to had fallen in arrear, then they had the position of the Public Trustee giving away that which already belonged to the beneficiary. He thought he was right in saying that notwithstanding the fact that the lessees under the Act of 1881 who came before the Commission, and said that they had- been ignorant of what was taking place from time to time, that every single lessee who made his statutory declaration got his reduction in rent. Moreover, that reduction, as the Commission had already heard, was the result of an agitation, and it was evident from that agitation that the lessees must have discussed the various terms of their leases. Under the Act of 1892 the lessees got a perpetual right of renewal and compensation for all improvements up to £5 per acre.

In return for those two concessions the lessees paid sometimes a slightly' increased rent, and sometimes a slightly reduced rent. That was what the tenant paid. The natives, on the other hand, were deprived of their right to compete for their own land, and the natives received sometimes a slightly in-(•"•r-'.r,; in.ime, and sometimes a slightly reduced Surely that was a breach of the trust to the natives; and again the natives were never •heard. Mr. Kerr: This was contrary to the Act of 1881. Mr, Bell: It was contrary to the bargain when we settled their differences. Tho protected lessee was allowed to ascertain whether it would pay him to convert, and, having so ascertained, he was allowed to say whether he would convert or not. That was the way we had fulfilled our obligations. But in case the lessee made a mistake in his conclusions, tho Act of 1895 gave him another chance, and so with the Acts of 1808 and 1900. He contended' that section 8 of the 1802 Act Bhould never have been passed, and for that matter the whole Act. It was probably due to th« pressure of the league which had at that time been formed by the leasees; also, he thought, it must obviously have been due to the fact that Parliament had not thoroughly understood the position. Certain lessees did not take nnv one of the opportunities to convert, and now they asked to be allowed to convert, paying rent assessed on the basis of the 1900 Act; in fact, asking fojr» better terms thnn were offered to those who converted in 1893. They asked to be allowed to exercise an option twelve years after that option had expired. They asked, further, not only for a new breach of trust, but for a greater one than had been committed in the history of the West Coast leases. What were the reasons given by the lessees for claiming the right to convert? They may be classified into five different classes. Firstly, they say they were masled by their leases, and that they did not understand their position; secondly, they say some of them did not know of their right to conversion; thirdly, some of them say they could not then afford to rent; fourthly, some of them say why should they be worse off than the people who, were wise enough to exercise the right of conversion in 1893; fifthly, they claim that the State should give them now the opportunity to convert on the ground that it is high public policy that this should be done, that the natives cannot farm the land satisfactorily, and that unless this land is secured to the lessees the ruin of Taranaki is at hand. Counsel then went on to meet those reasons, contending that the lessees had never been misled in regard to their leases. He claimed that the leases were perfectly clear, and nob misleading. There was no serious ( contention that any lessee who had looked at his lease had been misled. He also combatted the suggestion that the lessees had been misled by the Government lending departments. The lessees, in order to succeed, would have to show. firstly, that they were deceived; secondly, that the Public Trustee was in duty bound to spoon-feed them,. and, to see that they knew the terms of the leases, and the right to convert; thirdly, that they had been prejudiced by the failure of the Public Trustee to spoon-feed them; and, fourthly, that the sins of the Public Trustee should be visited, not on the nation, which is the actual trustee of the native, but upon the natives themselves, by whittling away the furthe right to bid for their own lands, which we virtually undertook to give them when we settled the Taranaki dispute. These were the four hurdles which the lessees had to clear, and they ha<l to be cleared in that order. The third and fourth hurdles were insurmountable, but the lessees had not even succeeded in clearing the first hurdle. Counsel then dealt at length with the arguments advanced by his learned friend, and the evidence of some of the witnesses for the lessees, and contended that the case for the lessees had been completely refuted by its own evidence. Dealing with the Public Trust Office, counsel said that he did not think the natives believed that the Publie Trustee had wilfully done anything in opposition to_ their interests, but had not realised this, and that if be had he would have done his best to prevent it. But the natives thought that their interests might have been better conserved. As far as the local administration of the Public Trust Office was concerned, he had learned from his clients that Mr. Zacariah was carrying out his duties admirably. In conclusion, counsel maintained that the natives could farm the lands satisfactorily if given the opportunity and the means to do so, and some of the witnesses had admitted that a number of the Maoris were already doing so. The salvation of the natives lay in encouragement being given them to work. The Public Trustee, Dr. Fitchett, was present, and in an address to the Commission said unless some scheme was propounded, whereby the natives could be placed on the land, and in a position to farm it themselves, the only course wbuld be to allow the lessees to convert their leases. He emphatically contended that the bargain with the natives had not been broken as tho result of the alteration in the legislation. If the alterations to the laws had not been made the land would not have been farmed, and Taranaki would not hare been whati t was to-day.—Hawera Star.