0. L. DUIGAN.I

9

[•.—Sβ.

27. They were made eligible in 1906, I think ?—Yes, but the leases go back to 1905, I think. 28. Those leases are now eligible ? —Yes. 29. When you made application for £3,000, was any reason given for the Office refusing to entertain the application ? —I do not think so. There was no objection stated to the security. 30. Probably the objection was to the amount ? —They did not say so. 31. Hon. Sir J. Carroll.] You have not got the letter? —No ; I could not find it. 32. The Chairman.] What was the amount that you applied for ? —£3,000. 33. Hon. Mr. Ngata.] There was a time when the Office would not lend more than £500 ? —Of course, £500 was of no use to us. There is a point that I wish to draw the attention of the Committee to with regard to the valuation of improvements, and it is this. Ido not know whether Mr. Pemberton made it clear. A man may sit down and not do any improvements to his land at all until towards the end of the first twenty-one years, and he will apparently get just the same compensation for his improvements as the man who has made his improvements in the earlier years and has been out of a considerable amount of interest on his money. 34. I think Mr. Pemberton's point was that there is no proper system of recording improvements ? —-It was the general insecurity of the position that he wished to emphasize, I think. 35. Can you give us any idea of what amount would be required to complete the main roading through the block —not the metalling ?—lt would only be a guess. There are 55,000 acres in the block, and I should say it would cost at least £25,000. 36. The Chairman.] A lot of it is broken country ? —One of the main roads is simply a 6 ft. track ; it is not fit for wheeled traffic. 37. Hon. Sir J. Carroll.] Suppose the land became the property of the tenants, who would have to expend the £25,000 ?—lf the tenants bought they could rate themselves, I suppose. 38. Can they not do that now ? —That is the only way in which we can get anything done. We have to pay an increased rent on our original payment. 39. The Chairman.] I have made representations in regard to these roads, the land being in my electorate, and the reply of the Minister of Public Works has invariably been that he would not expend any money on the block —that it was Native land ? —He struck out all the votes for maintenance and told us he had no money for roading Native lands the moment these sections were taken up. 40. Hon. Sir J. Carroll.] If they became European lands the objection would be removed ? —I suppose the internal roads would have to be made by the settlers, but the main road, I should say, the Government should contribute to. If our petition were given effect to, the Natives would get a very much increased revenue ; and it would be a benefit to us, because we could get money at a lower rate of interest, and our securities would be more readily negotiable, and our properties more saleable. Of course, we have had good times ever since we took these sections up, and our produce has brought fairly high prices; but if we had felt the pinch it would have been very awkward indeed. Ido not know what the settlers would have done. It was a very awkward thing for us to go with £10,000 worth of property and be told, " Your leases are not a negotiable security." It was a drawback.

Tuesday, 17th October, 1911. Thomas W. Fisher, Under-Secretary for Native Affairs, examined. (No. 3.) The Chairman: The Committee thought, Mr. Fisher, that you would probably be able to give some information in connection with the statements that have been made by the witnesses in this matter. Witness: You sent me over a copy of the evidence of Mr. Pemberton and Mr. Duigan. I have prepared a statement in reply, which is in the hands of the Clerk. The Chairman (to the Clerk): Will you read it, please? [Statement with letters attached, read by the Clerk as follows* —] Statement of Thos. W. Fisher, Under-Secretary for Native Affairs. Replying to Mr. Pemberton's statement, the position as to intentions re roading is dealt with in subsequent remarks. Had completed roads been intended as suggested the rental would undoubtedly have been higher. As to his remarks in not allowing the diversion of a sum to be used for metalline; instead of for completing the proposals, this would mean breaking faith with some as to the length of roading the expenditure was assessed for. The position as to the Board's contribution of interest-money on loans extending over currency of the existing lease is correct, and his assumption is no doubt right as to loan-money being deducted from unimproved value. To further follow his contention that same should also be added to improvement would mean debiting the owners twice with that amount: as, for example, assuming the unimproved value of the land to be £2 ss. per acre at the time of revaluation, and the liability for loan-money was 6d. per acre, that would be accepted as a liability on the land and the net value to £1 15s. per acre, which would make the new rental Is. 9d. per acre; and it is certainly a safer protection to the lessee to follow this course than to accept his suggestion as to adding value to improvements, and on my suggestion it is a direct charge on the land, therefore "confiscation of improvements" cannot As to remarks on the fencing question, the provisions in the lease clearly show that the claim cannot be made direct on the Board, and this is generally followed in all statutory bodies' leases, but does not remove any rights provided by the Fencing Act. That Act gives all persosn certain rights on adjoining lands becoming occupied, but. as far as these lessees are concerned, they

2—l. 3b.