The Maori Land Councils.

Maori Record : a journal devoted to the advancement of the Maori people, Volume I, Issue 1, 1 July 1905, Page 4

The Maori Land Councils.

From a recent number of the Canterbury Times we clip the following :“A Gisborne telegram’ states that an interesting return received from the Native Minister, the Hon. J. Carroll, shows that the area of native land dealt with during the period from January 1, 1895, to October 19, 1900 (that is, prior to the Maori Land Administration Act) totals 254,498 acres, while from October 20, 1900, to April 30, 1905 (since the passing of the Act) the total was 166,448, a grand total of 420,946 acres for the ten years, not including the large area dealt with by the East Coast Native Trust Land Board, and other large blocks since April, of which returns are not available.” On the East Coast lands thus dealt with we believe a large area has been brought under European occupation, but of the lands dealt with under the Maori Land Administration Act, as far as we are aware, not a single acre has been so occupied by the European, or a native owner placed on his separate holding with a secure tenure. And the latter operation should precede the former. In respect to the East Coast lands the following is also a Press Association telegram from Gisborne :— A BIG CLAIM SETTLED. [PRESS association.] GISBORNE, June 8. This morning the East Coast Native Trust Lands Board handed the Bank of New Zealand their cheque in payment of the balance of the bank’s claim against the trust lands, which at the date of the appointment of the Board, in March, 1903, amounted to nearly £160,000. During last session we heard at Wellington, in a place where natives most do frequent, a chief of the tribes who had placed their lands under that trust, bitterly bewailing that of their ten of thousands of acres dealt with, of the hundreds of thousands of pounds borrowed, not an acre remained to them, not a pound had gone to the Maori in payment. And the mere fact that the assertion was made should result in enquiry. Was the chief too previous? Does the payment and remuneration of the native owners lie on the lap of the gods to be distributed in the sweet bye-and-bye? Of the dealings under the Native Lands Administration Act we have not heard that any block has been placed on the market, with the exception of the Ohotu block by the Aotea Maori Land Council, with the following result, according to the press : — “The efforts of the Aotea Maori Land Council to dispose of the Ohotu block of 70,000 acres, near Wanganui, do not (remarks the Wellington Post) appear to have met with much success. When the block was first opened for leasing a year or so ago only two sections were taken up, and it was stated in Parliament last session that the fortunate individual who had got these two sections at a very small rental had been offered (and refused) £30,000 for the timber alone. It was recognised at the time that the block had been put upon the market without sufficient preparation, and that sufficient publicity had not been given to its being available for leasing purposes. Since then, however, the Council has

expended money in reading and generally opening up the block, and on 16th January of this year it was again opened for selection. Only five sections, however, were taken up, and the Native Minister is now in Wanganui enquiring into the matter.” [At time of writing, 14 sections have been taken up by Europeans and 12 by Maoris.] Now, there is quite sufficient blame attachable in the facts attending the failure, without seeking cause in the resources of fiction. We have our information, at first hand, and, although we frequently heard the statement that something like a “pile” was about to be made by persons who early acquired leases on the Ohotu Block, out of the immense beds of sawing timber on their holdings, we fail to find that facts bear out the allegations. It is said by a member of the Aotea Land Council that their surveyor, Mr Morgan Carkeek, most well and favourably known to us, has made full exploration of the block, and that though there is sufficient timfcei scattered over the block for the use of intending settlers, there is no large bed which would yield a “pile” for sawmilling purposes. And in regard to the quality' of the land, we have it from more than one competent judge that it is perhaps the best all-round block of land in native hands at the present time. What, then, is the reason why settlers hold aloof after two attempts to attract them ? It is shortly put as follows : “Want of access?” The Board has a surveyor of its own, with whom it is satisfied, and whom it trusts, having every confidence, and with reason, in his ability and exactitude, and their surveyor has been laying off roads on the block. But it is complained that the Government has also placed a surveyor on the block to lay of! roads, and the Council does not know whether the plotting of the work of the latter takes cognisance of the plans of the former, or whether the results of both will not be a maze in chaos. And the surveyor of the Board has to take a lien over the rents to accrue from lands leased ; and it is reasonable to suppose, knowing Government Tnethods, that the latter’s surveyor either expects such a lien or is paid by the Government, which itself acquires security over the block. Members of the Board, who joined it with a hearty hope of doing good in the cause of European settlement, and at the same time justice to the native owners, are leaving the Board disheartened. Why? Because it is stated that there is too much Government interference. The functions of the Board are dominated by a special officer of the Government. Cannot something be done to remedy matters and allow the members of the Board the full liberty of action permitted by the Act under which they work? The member does not think so ; the strenuous officer of the Government is irrepressible. Last year when the Board had acquired the transfer of the block from the native owners, and met to decide on what terms and at what length of tenure it should be leased to Europeans, it was calculated that a term of forty-two years at a reasonable rental would be required in which to pay off the accumulated cost of bringing the land into occupation, and that with that reasonable rent the European holders could afford to sufficiently improve the land, whilst leaving them a fair profit when, at the end of forty-two years, the native owners apprehend the block would be handed back to them as farms for the rising generation

of Maoris, whom they wish to equip for battle in the new order of things which is giving place to the old. It is asserted that those terms were written before the signatures were affixed. But that when the documents were returned to them from Wellington the terms were newly stated to be for twenty-one years, with a perpetual right of renewal to the European lessee, thus defeating the object the natives had when, by an act of self-denial, they had defaced their own immediate interests in favour of their children, whom they wished to have a good opportunity of becoming farmers. For their mode of life is the only one open to the Alaori, who lias no land and no capital, to get that land improved. This matter was brought before the Native Minister, hut not in the House, during last session of Parliament, and he promised redress during the recess. We believe the right of perpetual renewal has been deleted from the terms, but, on the other hand, the lessee has the right to be paid for all improvements at the end of both the first and second term of twenty-one years, and we believe, taking our information from the public advertisements, that there is no limit placed on the amount of improvements with which the lessee may load the land. In the first leases issued on the West Coast Settlement Reserves, when it was thought that the native owners had a right of occupation on the reversion of the lease, the amount of improvements to which the lessee was restricted was £5 per acre in value. At the meeting held up the Whanganui River to settle the terms, a more moderate estimate than that was placed on the value of the prospective improvements, and though the lessees were not restricted, it was calculated that they would put about £3 worth per acre on the land. It was felt that even that amount would stand in the way of the natives regaining occupation. We saw a letter written to the “Puke-ki-Hikurangi (Alaori newspaper), published at Greytown, dealing with this matter, and advocating that the European lessess he allowed a further term of occupation in extinguishment of the claim for improvements. There is another and most important aspect of this matter, for we are treating of the dealings with Ohotu as typical of what will be the policy over the whole of the lands held in trust under the Maori l ands Administration Act. We allude to the provision made for native occupation, his papakianga, his town or village home. At the meeting above alluded to his attention was drawn to the fact that the 1000 acres set apart for the native village settlement, out of the 40.000 acres to be occupied by European leaseholders, was quite unsuitable, being on precipitous river-cliffs. It was advocated that a block of 5000 acres should be set apart for native settlements, and this was agreed to. But when application was made to the Native Land Court for the reservation of this area, the natives were told that the Native Land Court has no authority to do this, that no such partition could he made, and that the only way left for the owners of 40,000 acres to gain a home and cultivations for themselves would be to tender for leases in the same way as Europeans had to do. And the natives are angry with the Judge, who probably has no option, but is guided entirely by legislation made and pro-

vided. And so the matter rests. Neither European nor native occupation is secured, and we are asked to believe that the Alaori Lands Administration Act provides machinery by which the reputed 5,000,000 acres of waste native lands may be brought under beneficial occupation. Again, the native lands vested in the Alaori Councils for leasing purposes and the settlement, Loth of Europeans and natives, have not the native title individualised. The consequence is, as it is with administration of the West Coast Settlement Reserves by the Public Trustee, for land taxation purposes, the assessment is made on the large blocks. The hundreds of owners in these blocks have interests differing in area and value, some of them small. By this assessment en bloc there is absolutely no exemption, such as is enjoyed by European owners of land less than £SOO in value; the native owner of £5 worth has to pay. And he not only has to pay, but has to pay largely, for the assessment being made on large blocks, the valuation is on a high scale. When last session the natives were made amenable to the payment of full local rates, it was thought that as a mere matter of justice legislation would ensue to remove this differential treatment of the Alaori in comparison with the European subject. But nothing was done. Whilst making the Alaori amenable to all the penalties of citizenship, by what right, except that of the strong over the weak, do we withhold the enjoyment of full privileges?