NATIVE LEASEHOLDS.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 3358, 26 October 1911, Page 5

NATIVE LEASEHOLDS.

POSSIBILITY OF AGGREGATION

(From our Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON. Oct. 24.

In the House of Representatives this evening the Hon. A. T. Ngata, in moving, on behalf of Sir Jas. Carroll, the second reading of the Native Land Claims Adjustment Bill, said that a new clause would be moved as a consequence of the judgment of the Court of Appeal in the Ivopaataki case. The judgment turned on the meaning of the term “lessee” in the limitation clauses of the “Native Land Act, 1909, and the Court had held that those sections did not apply to assignees of such leases, but only to the original grantees. The Solicitor-General was, therefore, afraid that the whole of the limitations provisions of the Act of 1909, in regard to leasehold, would fie of no effect. The Minister instanced a case in his own district, where one man held 30,000 or 40,000 acres of Native leaseholds, and 15,000 acres of freehold, while another, a few miles from him, held 20,000 acres of freehold and a similar area of Native leasehold. Under the law as now interpreted by the Court, one of these men could acquire the whole of those two holdings of Native land. There was no graduated land tax on such lands, as upon European lands. In fact, unlimited aggregation of Native leasehold was the natural outcome of the judgment, anil that should not be allowed under a liberal Government. The Soli-citor-General was of opinion that the clause suggested by him would cause no hardships. It would declare the law to be as it had hitherto been supposed to he.

Mr Herries protested strongly against the retrospective character of the proposed clause, which lie said would take away existing rights of leaseholders, •which they had exercised for years without abuse.

The new clause was afterwards circulated. Sub-clause one declares that: “ ‘lessee’ and ‘sub-lessee’ in part XII of the Act of 1909 include, and at all times heretofore have included, a lessee by assignment and sub-lessee by assignment.” Sub-clause 2 provides that nothing in part XII. shall prevent the assignment or sub-letting of a leasehold estate in Native land to anyone who does not already hold more than 100 acres of Native, Crown, or European land, as owner, lessee or sub-lessee, solely or jointly with another person. Subclause 3 forbids the registration of instruments for the acquisition of interests in Native freehold land, in the absence of a statutory declaration of compliance with part XII. of the Native Land Act, 1909.

THE AGGREGATION QUESTION. TO BE REFERRED TO THE SOLI-CITOR-GENERAL. WELLINGTON, Oct. 25. Mr. Ngata’s retrospective clause to prevent the aggregation of Native leasehold was before the House in committee in the small hours of this morning, but notwithstanding the fact that such is the most convenient time for getting proposals agreed to without proper consideration, this clause was stuck up. Mr. Herries strongly opposed the proposal, which he characterised as one of gross spoliation. Mr. Field also opposed the proposal. Tt would, ho said, lead to a great deal of trouble, apart altogether from the fact that the interests of a number of people would be interfered with. Mr. Massey contended that the retrospective aspect of the amendment was most serious, and the Hon. A. T. Ngata said he did not think it was sufficiently realised that under the existing law it was possible for a person to buy up leases to any extent without regard to the limitation of area provisions of the Act. This was a matter of policy, and he suggested that the Act should not be retrospective further back than the passing of the Maori Land Administration Act of 1900. Mr. Herries said they were not objecting to the principle of the clause, but to the proposal that it should bb retrospective. Mr. Nos worthy declared that it was monstrous that the Crown should go back on any contracts which it has entered into. i

The motion for the second ■ eading of the clauses was carried to a division at 3.20 a.m. The ayes were 22 and the nobs were 22, and the Chairman (Mr. Colvin) gave his casting vote for the amendment. The Hon. A- Ngata said lie would refer the clause to the Solicitor-General for further consideration. He did not propose to carry it further at that stage.