1.-3 A.

10

|>. CAMPBELL

me that they have stood back so long and allowed legislation to be passed enabling the work to be done for them. I should like to see them come out and take up their own work as the Europeans do. 119. You would not object to it being done that way —to repeal the Act altogether, and allow the tenants to deal direct with the Native owners?—lf it would be an advantage to the Natives. 120. Hon. Mr. Carroll.] How would you view the possibility of a good smart speculator mopping up all those sections?— That man would have a very bad time of it. 121. From the tenants? —Yes, he would be boycotted. i Wednesday, 10th November, 1909. (Mr. Greenslade, Chairman.) Joseph William Poynton examined. (No. 5.) 1. The Chairman.] What are you?— Public Trustee. 2. I understand you have a statement to place before the Committee in regard to the Greymouth Native Reserves? —Yes. The Committee will understand the position better if it has a brief history of the Reserve placed before it. Origin of the Reserve. In 1860 the Native owners of the land, the Ngaitahu Tribe, sold to the Crown the land stretching from north of the Karamea River to Milford Sound, and from the sea-coast to the summits of the Southern Alps—over 10,000 square miles, or about 7,000,000 acres in all, comprising all the gold, coal, and timber areas of the West Coast. The price was £300. The purchase was completed by Mr. James Mackay on behalf of the New Zealand Government. In his instructions he was directed to exempt from the purchased area lauds required by the Natives for their occupation. One of these portions was on the south bank of the Grey River, containing 501 acres. When gold was discovered on the West Coast in the early sixties there was, of course, a great rush there, and a town quickly came into existence on this Reserve. The Four Different Tenures. 1. Chaos. —At first, each settler who desired to build on a portion of the Reserve made his own arrangements direct with the Natives. The Reserve was not then vested in any public official. As usual in such cases great confusion arose. There were no proper surveys of streets or sections, and the same piece would be sometimes leased to two or more pakehas. Encroachment on each other's leaseholds and the streets were common. The Government sent Mr. Alexander Mackay, as Commissioner, to Greymouth, in order to endeavour to put things in order. He found that some tenants had paid rent in advance, some had obtained what they considered rights of renewal, and others had squatted on the river frontage under supposed leases from the owners. He, with the consent of the owners, advised the bringing of the land under "The Natives Reserves Act, 1856," and this was done. 2. Order. —After this leases were properly issued under that Act by Mr. Mackay as Commissioner, and the chaos reduced to something like order. Under these leases the tenants had, of course, no right of renewal, and no property in the improvements erected on their leaseholds. No power existed under the then law to give these rights. 3. Compensation for Improvements. —This was given by " The South Island Native Reserves Act, 1883." Iti 1885 the Governor appointed Harry Kenrick Geihard Mueller and James Thompson Catley a Commissioner to inquire into the whole matter. The position was very much involved owing to the land having been subdivided and the subtenants having largely improved their holdings. These subtenants had no right to renewal and no property in their improvements, as their white landlords had. One or two speculators in early times had secured large areas under leases from the Natives, and had subleased a,t great advantage to themselves. The Commissioner recommended that these leases of large areas should not be renewed, but those of the subtenants should have protection for improvements. The result of the report and the recommendations of Mr. Alexander Mackay, who throughout took a most comprehensive and fair view of the whole question in all its aspects, was "The Westland and Nelson Native Reserves Act, 1887." This Act, extending the provisions of the 1883 Act, provided that on the expiration of all leases and subleases the improvements were to be valued. If the Public Trustee (who took the place of the Commissioner by the Act of 1882) and the tenant failed to agree as to the value of the improvements, this was to be settled by arbitration. The lease was then to be put up to competition by auction or tender. An upset (that is, a minimum) rental was to be fixed by the Public Trust Office Board.