G.—lf

ISO 3. NEW ZEALAND.

NATIVE LANDS AND NATIVE-LAND TENURE: REPORT OF NATIVE LAND COMMISSION ON THE OPERATION OF SECTION 11 OF "THE NATIVE LAND SETTLEMENT ACT, 1907."

Presented to both Houses of the General Assembly by Command of His Excellency.

Rotorua, 11th March, 1908. To His Excellency the Governor. May it please Your Excellency,— We desire to make a report on a difficulty that has met us in carrying out our functions under the Commission. We have found amongst the Wanganui and Ngatimaniapoto Tribes much distrust of section 11 of "The Native Land Settlement Act, 1907," and this has hampered us in obtaining the consent of Maoris to the opening-u'p of lands for settlement. No doubt this distrust has not been created wholly by the passing of that provision in the statute quoted. The discussions that are taking place amongst Europeans about Maori ownership of land have doubtless influenced them. They, however, say that they ought not to be prevente.d from either selling or leasing their lands if they please, and the effect of section 11 of the Act is to force them, if they wish to lease their lands, to sell the half of what they wish to lease. . We may explain the provisions of the statute. By section 4, which is the first section of Part I, it is provided that so often as the Commission has reported that any Native land is not required for occupation by the Maori owners, and is available for sale or leasing, an Order in Council may be issued to declare that such lands shall be subject to Part I of this Act. Section 11 provides that as soon as land becomes subject to Part I of the Act the Board in which the same is vested shall with the approval of the Native Minister divide such land into two portions approximately equal, and set apart one such portion for sale and the other for leasing. If therefore, for example, Maori owners resolved to lease say 2,000 acres of land, and the Commission reported that this area of 2,000 acres was not necessary for their own occupation, the result would be that the Board would have to sell 1 000 acres of the 2,000 acres, and only lease 1,000 acres. It might happen that this land that the Maoris desire to lease was land belonging to children, or Maori owners might have children who would be their successors and to whom the land would be necessary for occupation when they became of age. Such instances as these are entirely ignored by the statute, and the Board would be forced to sell half of th« land, and thus perhaps deprive the true owners who are under age of the possibility of utilising the land when they become of age. The-section, however, is a two-edged sword, for, suppose the Maoris had 2,000 acres which they did not requiref or their own occupation, and desired to sell the whole 2,000 acres, the statute provid esthat only half of the area shall be sold. It forces the Board to lease half, though the Maoris do not desire to remain landlords. We are of opinion that the full effect of this provision was not clearly seen by the Legislature, else we feel sure it would not have been enacted into law, and we have no doubt that now we have pointed out the position the Government and the Legislature will both consent to an alteration of the existing law. It is not our duty or function to enter upon any