GREAT CHANCE MISSED.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 3269, 14 July 1911, Page 5

GREAT CHANCE MISSED.

FUTILE NATIVE LAND LAWS. I POSITION EXPLAINED. MR. MERRIES REPLIES TO SIR JAMES CARROLL. In an interview with a representative of the “Dominion,” Mr. W. Herries, M.P., who has made a special study of the Native Land problem, gave a most effective reply to the statements on this question by Sir James Carroll and the Hon. A. T. Ngata during then- recent tour to the South Island. Mr. Herries said Sir James Carroll is reported to have saidi in his Invercargill speech that the area owned 'by the Maoris in the North Island was 6,018,371 acres, as at March 31st last. In his speech in the House in the Financial Debate on August 5, 1910,' he gave almost similar figures, viz.: 6,037,128 acres; but he arrives at those figures in a very peculiar way. He takes the total acreage as ascertained: by the Royal Commission as coming under the description of Native land as his basis, viz., 7,465,000 acres. From this he deducts:— Acres (a) Area since acquired by Crown 23,300 (b) Area since acquired by private persons 38,550 (c) Area already sold and included by error in Commission’s estimate 20,000 Total 81,850 To this I have no objection, but he goes still further in his subtraction: (d) Area estimated for lakes, rivers, and springs 200,000 (e) Area to which title has just been ascertained... 113,281 (f) Papatipu land 377,471 (g) Land in the Urewera area... 466,5b2 (b) Land under the Thermal Springs Act... 188,408 Total 1,346,022 FIGURES CRITICISED. I cannot see any reason why these areas should be deducted from the total area of Native land. They certainly come under that denomination, though the Urewera country, and until lately, the Thermal Springs District, were under separate nets, but for the purpose of land held unprofitable by Natives, they have a right to be included. Ihe deduction of 200,000 acres for lakes, rivers, and springs is a preposterous one, as the lakes are never, as a rule, lnclutled in the surveys. Panatipu land is land to which the title has not been ascertained, and is certainly Native ’and, but the names of the owners are unknown. The estimate of Native land rtven by Sir J. Carroll should, therefore be increased by 1,346,022 making it, at the time he snoke in the House on Angus* 5. 1910, 7,383,150, and only a little less on March 31, 1911- ~ .. , From this amount he further deducts, in his speech in the House 3,592,6/6, and in his Invercargill speech 3,91b,04z, as being profitably occupied leavmg a balance of, as he says, 2,444,402 ana 2,102,029 respectively as unoccupied Native land, and accuses Mr. Massey of misrepresentation, because he says there are about 4,000,000 acres unproductive. Mr Massev was quoting from a return G 3 1909, the latest return given us, which gives the total of unproductive Native land as 3,994,727 acres; and we add the 1,346,022 acres wrongful deducted to the figures en by Sir■ J. Carroll, in his speech in his speech m Invercargill, we 'will see that Mr Massey was not far wrong his estimate, after allowing for the transactions of over a year. ~, If also we examine Sir J. Carroll s table of lands in profitable occupation we shall find ample food, for reflection, and that the statement that they are profitably occupied requires to,b€> taken with a considerable grain of salt, ir the common meaning of profitably occupied is to be accepted. For instance: “Lands leased direct from the Natives, confirmed by the Native Land Court, are given as 1,500,000 acres in Mr. Carrffil’s speech in the House. These consist of all kinds of leases of varying lengths, some of which may be shortly expiring. Many of them are for very short terms, which do not allow ‘for much improvement being done. Many are leases held by adjoining freeholders, and cannot m any way be termed genuine settlement m the modern acceptance of, the term. Then there is an area given as M'-V 177 as the acreage of land leased by Europeans, with the approval of the Maori Land Boards, presumably under Clause 16 of the 1905 Act. This area is probably a nearer approach to genuine settlement than any other Mentioned, but it is curious that this clause was bitterly opposed bv &ir J. Carroll on the Native Affairs Committee when proposed by Mr. A. L. D. Fraser, and yet it is the. only clause that did anything in favour of settlement during the long dreary years between 1894 and 1909. A CURIOUS SIDE-LIGHT.

Then there is an amount of 247,489 o-iven as the acreage leased through the Maori Land Boards. Two returns laid on the table of the House last session threw a curious side-light. on idiis so-called settlement. G 10 gives the names and acreage of the blocks vested in the Maori Land Boards, m consequence of the legislation of 1900, and from that we gather that 396,0-U acres have been vested (excluding town sections), and 229,038 acres leased, but I defy anyone looking ovei* the return to affirm that it represents successful settlement. For instance, we see that a great part of this socalled settlement consists of leases or timber-cutting rights and flax-cutting rights; 49,134 acres are leased to one company, 18,0665 acres are leased to one man; and only about 105,3-1 acres of rural land has been apparently genuinely settled by 147 settlers. A*'"gain, another return. G 10a. shows the acreage of Native land vested m the board in consequence of the report or the Native Land Commission ancl the subsequent legislation of 1907 to be 328,187. which is in addition to the 396,313 acres vested in consequence ol the 1900 Act, previously mentioned. Of this 328.187 acres the magnificent amount of 4106 acres is announced as having been disposed of either by sale or lease in four years. The truth is that land vested in the boards under various Acts (and Sir J. Carroll in his August speech, gives the total amount as 1,029,361 acres), is just as much locked up as if it was still Native land, or rather more so, as even the Natives cannot use it. I heard of a case of a Native from the East Coast who wished to cultivate a piece of land he had in the King Country, and moved there with his teams and ploughs, only to find that without

his knowledge his land had been vested in the Maori Land Board on the recommendation of the Royal Commission, and he could not even touch his own land. The Board has no staff, and no money to use in cutting up land and. the consequence is that neither Native nor European has a chance to obtain sections in land vested in the Board. . Out of the 1,029,362 acres vested in the boards not more than 150,000 acres at the utmost have been leased to genuine settlers, and then only on short leases as a rule. The whole department is starved; the total vote from the Maori Land Boards, in-' eluding salaries and travelling expenses last year, was only £3BOB, and nothing is voted specifically for opening up the lands they hold. Even the advantages given by the 1909 Act are nullified in the case of land vested in the hoards as no pakeha can deal with the‘Native owner.

LIKE A BLIGHT ON THE LAND. The administration of the boards lies like a blight on the land, not tln-ough the fault of the boards, but through their insufficient equipment. I notice that Sir J. Carroll denies the criticism of Mr. Massey and Mr. Allen on the 1909 Bill, but he is most unjust in that, as he knows as well as I do that the Bill would never have passed except for the forbearance and assistance of the Opposition. The Opposk tion allowed the practical suspension of the Standing Orders to allow the Bill to be put through, not clause by clause, but by blocks of clauses, and Messrs. Massey and Allen were only doing their duty in asking explanations of the principal clauses, and it was noticeable that though Sir J. Carroll was in charge of the Bill Mr. Ngata generally gave the explanation; in'fact, the credit of the Bill is due to Professor Salmond and Mr. Ngata. The 1909 Bill is a great improvement on previous legislation, but it must be remembered that the more Sir J. Carroll praises the 1909. Bill the more he condemns the previous Native legislation of tha Government, as if reverses a good deal and alters more of all the legislation since 1894.

If the 1909 Act had been, passed in 1894. I venture to sav that if it had been properly administered the Native difficulty by this time would have been a thing of the past. Instead of that we had. ever since Sir J. Carroll’s party came into power, legislation which the Royal Commission itself described as doomed to failure and a block to settlement. The figures quoted by Mr. Ngata mean absolutely nothing as far as settlement is concerned. Because so many thousand acres have passed through a Native Land Court or have been vested in a board or have been partitioned, it does not mean that settlement has taken place or even has been advanced a stage, and 1 venture to sav that anyone who visits the North of Auckland or the King Country will see, notwithstanding the figures quoted by Ministers. Native and Crown land in, thousands of acres lying idle even though it has gone through Courts and Appellate Courts and has been the subject of litigation that has cost more than the land was worth, and no further advanced toward settlement than it was 20 years ago. That is why speeches such as Sir J. Carroll’s and Mr. Ngata’s have no effect up north, as they have ocular demonstration of the fallacy of avalanches of figures put forward by the Minister.

A THORNY TASK. There is no doubt that the Act of 1909 has to a certain extent stimulated and allowed settlement of Native land, but it is still not a poor man’s game, and until the costs and hazards are reduced genuine settlement m the true sense of the word will not be of large extent. The speculator is abroad, and the present Native land laws no doubt favor him, but as long as there is some settlement I suppose we shall have to be satisfied till a radical alteration in the Native Department and land law's are made, which will be one of the thorniest tasks of a new Administration. Sir J. Carroll missed a great chance. He was the one man who could have done more to unite the two races than any other man in the Dominion; instead of that, the whole aim of the Government policy has been to separate the. races. It is only in 1909; after seventeen years have been wasted in futile and indefensible legislation, that.the germ of a saner policy becomes visible, and if a wiser Government comes into power the Act of 1909 may be used as a foundation stone by which the unification of the two races which is the one desire of all who wish well to the Native race may be at last attained. Sir James Carroll accuses the Opposition of wanting to spoil the Natives, but I think most people will agree, that , the spoilers are those who, by their legislation, have absolutely taken away the freehold of 1,029,362 acres from the Natives and handed it over to boards, and are responsible for Clauses 84; 85, 86, and 87 of the Native Land Act, 1909.