The Maori Land Settlement Bill.

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

The Maori Land Settlement Bill.

The .above Bill is called by the natives “Te Pire Muru” —the Confiscation Bill. It gives the Native Minister power to hand over to the Council any native land which in his opinion “is not required or not suitable for occupation by the Maori owners.” We conclude, that all native lands desired for European occupation will in the opinion of the Minister be “not suitable tor occupation by the Maori.” for section f of this clause 6 says that lands so declared by the Governor-in-Council to be the estate of the Maori Council in fee simple may be disposed of by the latter Council by way of lease . . . “provided that a definite number of such allotments may be set aside for application in the first instance by the .Maori owners of the land.” If these lands are “not required or not suitable for occupation by the Maori owners,” when the land is theirs by ancestral title, protected by the Treaty of Waitangi, what peculiar factor has made it desirable after it is handed, against their will, to an alien Council ? For the Maori Land Councils, which are objected to as being too Pakeba, are by the present Bill mad© up of three members only, including the Pakeha President, and only one of the other two must be a Maori. What possible good can he do? One against two, and the land his national property! For shame ! ! Look through the Opposition papers, most emphatic in their call for the beneficial occupation of native lands, and it will be found that inyarb

ably it is the “surplus land” which is demanded for European occupation. And Government papers are equally anxious that justice should be done, to the natives, and cry out that they must be protected against the earth-hunger of the Northern settler. The Premier says he must carry the natives with him in his land legislation. Is this the way to carry the natives with him? To confiscate the whole of their land, and offer them portions back on conditions of payment, etc.! That word “papakainga” is not used in the Bill in its true sense, if it is meant to contain farms in the European sense of the word farm. To us there is no evidence that it is so either in the Bill or on blocks operated bv the Councils. A papakainga is a village settlement, not a farm settlement. It thus follows that under the Bill the only way a Maori has of farming his own land is by applying for it the same as any Pakeha may apply, and paying for it in a like manner, but he has first choice. We believe when the public says “the surplus lands of the Maoris for European occupation the public means the surplus. Have we any reason to suppose that the natives object to the European occupation of that surplus? Quite the contrary. It is Government laws against sale and purchase which stand in the way. But if the Government wishes to preserve these laws and yet occupy the surplus, is there no other way than confiscation of the whole? With the native willing the proper way would be first to discover the surplus. The Government possesses all the data—has all the records of the Native Lands Courts, and all the maps of the Colonial Survey Office. The first will give us data as to number of owners, which with their relations will be the number to be provided for in land. Let the Government collect all particulars of land and people, call together the latter, and if the proposals of the Government are those of the Premier at Rotorua, the surplus will be in European occupation In a very short time. That will be according to the Treaty of Waitangi, which gives the Sovereign the first right of purchase at a price to be agreed upon by the two parties. When Mr Kaihau asked the Native Minister if the treaty was still in force, he applied to the wrong person for an authoritative statement on the subject. All he got was the opinion of Mr Carroll, and we cannot say much for it. Of the two high contracting parties the Maoris are unanimously of opinion that the treaty is still in full force. The other high contracting party is represented by His Excellency the Governor, a part of whose duty it is to see that Mr Carroll and his colleagues do not enact measures contrary to the provisions of the Treaty of Waitangi and other treaties. Besides the treaty has never been protested. Mr Carroll’s suggestion, that because by special Acts portions of the land have been taken from under the provisions of the treaty, the natives can no more claim protection of the treaty as a charta of rights is ridiculous. In the early eighties 201,000 acres were Crowngranted by Queen Victoria to over 5000 natives. From 1892 to 1900 the present Government has passed Acts destructive of the provisions of those Crown grants. Because of this, are the titles of all those, Europeans or natives, holding under the grant of the Sovereign vitiated, and is a Crown grant no longer a charta? The fact that the Maori members have, from

time to time, voted for measures apparently destructive of native rights under the treaty, has influenced His Excellency the Governor, of successive periods, in giving the Royal assent to such measures. Self-government was never thought of in 1840, and when it was granted in 1852 the Crown probably, in appointing the Maori members at so few a number, never anticipated that questions destructive of provisions of the treaty, by which the sovereignty was held, would be introduced for discussion and division. In many cases the vote of the four members would indicate to the Governor the Maori attitude toward any Bill divided on. But it was never anticipated that the four Maori members, who hold the destinies of the Maori nation in their vote, would be tempted into the thrall of party government. Their vote on native matters has a distinctive and enhanced value in the eyes of the Viceroy, who makes of a Bill an Act by his signature. But perhaps ignorant of this, the native members time after time vote with the Government party and against the interests of their nation. In such a case, treaty notwithstanding, how can His Excellency differ from his responsible advisers when the latter are backed by the Maori vote? But it does not appear to us that the Ministry who thus uses the Maori vote is bearing the White Man’s Burden fairly. If left to themselves every Maori will vote against this Bill. And it is particularly noticeable in this Bill that the Governor is made the principal agent in seizing native land which is conserved to the native by the Treaty of Waitangi, of which His Excellency is the guardian. For the Native Minister having decided to fake it, “the Governor may by Order-in-Council declare that the land is vested in the (Maori Land) Council for an estate in fee simple in possession.” . (Clause 6, sub-section a). Now if the Maori members, in obedience to the call of the party Whip, vote for this Bill in a majority vote, it is quite possible the Governor may think the Bill contains the desire of the Maori nation, and attach his signature. But if the maori members vote as the Maori nation, probably without exception, hopes, against the Bill, each and every one, it is not at all likely that His Excellency will consider it his duty to confiscate lands protected by the Treaty of Waitangi at the request of his responsible advisers. Of course it will be contended that the decision as to lands to be seized, resting by the Bill with the Native Minister, no injustice will be done, because that Minister is the protector of native interests in the Cabinet. Such consideration will certainly have weight with the Governor, and the leaving of the decision to the Native Minister is a very cunning contrivance. Lately a native asked another native who is in the employ of the Native Minister, “Do you think the Native Minister works in the interests of his mother’s people and the race he represents in the Cabinet, or does he work as directed by the Government which employs him and keeps him in office?” And the answer was, “He works for those who pay him— is, for the Government—all the time, not for the Maoris.” Our opinion is different. It is this: The Hon. Mr Carroll strenuously works for all the good for the Maori, people the Liberal and Labour Party will consent to, which is nothing.