NATIVE LAND AMENDMENT AND NATIVE LAND CLAIMS ADJUSTMENT ACT, 1921-22. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON PETITIONS Nos. 81 AND 82 OF 1921, RELATIVE TO THE PERSONS INCLUDED IN THE TITLE TO LOT 95, PARISH OF TE PAPA.

Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives, 1923 Session I-II, G-06c

G.—6c

Session 11. 1923. NEW ZEALAND.

NATIVE LAND AMENDMENT AND NATIVE LAND CLAIMS ADJUSTMENT ACT, 1921-22. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON PETITIONS Nos. 81 AND 82 OF 1921, RELATIVE TO THE PERSONS INCLUDED IN THE TITLE TO LOT 95, PARISH OF TE PAPA.

Presented to Parliament in pursuance of Section 35 of the Native Land Amendment and Native Land Claims Adjustment Act, 1921-22.

Native Department, Wellington, 12th July, 1923. Memorandum for the Hon. Native Minister, Wellington. Re Petitions Nos. 81 and 82 of 1921, Lot 95, Parish of Te Papa. Enclosed herewith is the Court's report under section 35 of the Native Land Amendment and Native Land Claims Adjustment Act, 1921-22. The report does not disclose the position of the title, and, as this is in an extraordinary position, I have thought it best to refer to it with the object of having it set upon a sure basis. Originally this land was set aside in 1866 to be granted to two persons on trust for the Ngatihangarau. Although a grant was prepared, for some technical reason it apparently was never signed. Under these circumstances the Minister of Lands, in 1916, applied to the Court under section 11 of the Native Land Amendment Act, 1912, to inquire who were the beneficial owners, evidently for the purpose of issuing a title. The report was made, and the Warrant actually prepared for signature, but was eventually returned to the office preparing it, with the remark, " It must be held that the Native Land Court had no jurisdiction to hold an inquiry into the ownership of the land, and that the report of the Judge was accordingly ultra vires and inoperative." It is submitted that the idea the Court had not jurisdiction arose from an erroneous construction of an opinion given by the Solicitor-General with regard to the effect of section 11 of the 1912 Act. If that section had any virtue at all this clearly appears to be a case that the Court would have jurisdiction to act in, if properly authorized. In any case, it has been assumed that a title would issue ; the block has been partitioned into sixteen divisions, which have been surveyed ; and numerous succession and other orders have been granted ; and, as there is no title, there are grave doubts of the Court's jurisdiction to issue them. I recommend that legislation be passed — (1.) Authorizing the Governor-General to sign a Warrant for the issue of a title, subject to its being amended as hereafter noted as from 25th April, 1917. (2.) The Court be declared to have had jurisdiction to grant orders made since that date. (3.) The Native Land Court be authorized to hear and determine any application to have the title amended, and if it is satisfied that the amendment proposed is just and ought to be given effect to, to adjust the titles and partitions or other orders in such manner as it thinks most expedient to give effect to any rectification necessary. R. N. Jones, Chief Judge.

G.—6o

2

Office of the Waiariki District Native Land Court, Rotorua, 28th September, 1922. Memorandum for the Hon. Native Minister, Wellington. Lot 95, Parish of Te Papa. — Petition No. 81 of 1921, Session 11, Amolceiha le Mete; Petition No. 82 of 1921, Session 11, Hemi Hemi. 1 beg to report that, on. the application of the Chief Judge of the Native Land Court pursuant to section 35 of the Native Land Amendment and Native Land Claims Adjustment Act, 1921-22, I held an inquiry into the matter the subject of these petitions at Tauranga on the 20th instant. The facts appear to be as follows : On or about the time of the termination of the Maori War this land was confiscated by the Crown, but was afterwards returned to Natives. On the 29th April, 1916, Judge Browne held an inquiry under section 11 of the Native Land Amendment Act, 1912, for the purpose of ascertaining the beneficial owners. The Court then hold that it had been intended to give the land back to the N'Hangarau Tribe as a whole, and not for those of them only who were then in occupation. A list of beneficiaries, containing sixty-four names, was then adopted by the Court, and it was ordered that these persons should participate equally. Instead of making succession orders for the interests of those of the beneficiaries who were dead, the Court allowed their then representatives to be included in their title in their stead. This seems to have caused the trouble. It is alleged that the names of forty persons were substituted for that of one beneficiary, Whareangiangi Kereti, who left eleven children, and that her grandchildren were included as well as her children (their parents). The appellant Amokeiha te Mete claims that he has been prejudiced in consequence, and asserts that, by the inclusion of his own name as well as those of his ten children, his brother Karora te Mete and his family obtained a greater interest than they were entitled to. The Court is of opinion that the appellant is correct in this contention. The petitioner Hemi Hemi is the only son of Hemi Hairuha who it is alleged was entitled to be included amongst the original beneficiaries. This Court has not been able to arrive at a definite conclusion as to this contention. Judge Browne's award was in favour of persons who were adults at the time of the first award. The Court took some evidence as to Hemi flairuha's age, but it was too contradictory to enable it to form an opinion as to whether or not Hemi Hemi is entitled to be in the title. The land has been subdivided into a number of small sections, and these have been surveyed. If the award is altered it will probably follow that a lot of useless survey work has been done. But it would appear that an injustice has been done, and this Court therefore recommends that special legislation be introduced authorizing the Native Land Court to reopen the matter sufficiently to enable (1) the inclusion of the name of Hemi Hairuha (or his son, Hemi Hemi), (2) the issue of a title in favour of the original sixty-four persons found by Judge Browne to be entitled (with the possible inclusion of Hemi Hairuha or his son), or to such persons as may be found to be their lawful successors. There are some survey charges due. These, wherever unpaid, should be apportioned over the areas directly concerned, after the matter shall have been dealt with by the Court. The Head Office file (N. 1921/523) is returned herewith. W. 11. Bowler, Commissioner.

Approximate Cost of Paper. —Preparation, not ; printing (475 ooples), £1 15s.

Authority : W. A. G. Skinner, Government Printer, Wellington.—l 923.

Price 3d.]