Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

The Pamphlet Collection of Sir Robert Stout: Volume 57

Hon. Mr. Stout

Hon. Mr. Stout.

Mr. Stout.—The honourable gentleman who has just sat down said in the former part of his speech that the time for personal government of the Maoris, he thought, had come to an end. There is another thing which I think has come to an end, and that is the time for Maori doctors. We have heard tonight that the South Island knows nothing of the Maori question, and all knowledge about dealing with Native matters is reserved to a few—as my honourable friend called them—"past masters" who occupy positions in this House. It is time that came to an end as speedily as personal government of the Natives. Now, the honourable member spent three-fourths of his speech in commenting upon the notes of the Native meetings, and did not allude to the Bill at all. The time he spent upon this Bill was not much over a quarter of an hour in his long speech. All the rest was dealing with something that this House at present has nothing to do with; because, if the question of Native administration comes up, it should be discussed on the estimates, or in some definite way. To refer to the Native meetings on dealing with this Bill is entirely clouding the issue which is page 12 put before the House in asking it to read the Bill a second time: but I will not refrain from dealing with this question of the Native meetings; and let me say, first, that I am not going to refer to past administrations, I am not going to refer to the administration of the honourable member for Waitotara. If I did refer to it I should say that it was in many respects a most unjust administration, and I say that the circumstances of the colony did not justify action that was contrary to every principle of fair-play and justice. I have said that out of this House, and I say it in this House. I am not going to comment upon that; but I would say this to the honourable gentleman: that, although it is true that in one respect the honourable member for Waitotara brought peace, he also brought about a position in which there was no sympathy between the races. In every part of the North Island where I went I hardly spoke to a Maori without finding a profound feeling of irritation against the past administration. I am not going to mention expressions used regarding the Native Minister. I appeal to those who come from the North Island to say if they are not agreed that the Maoris as a whole had not, at any rate, a lovable feeling towards the honourable member for Waitotara; and I say that a Native Minister fails in his duty if he leaves the people over whom he is placed to exercise control and guidance in a state of profound irritation. What have we heard so much of in the management of Ireland? Have we not had it continually charged against the English Government that it failed in its duty as a Government because Ireland was left in a state of irritation? I say it is no credit whatever to a Minister of the Crown to have it said of him, in regard to his administration, that those whose affairs he is supposed to look after are left in a state of profound irritation. An honourable member says it is not true. Well, let an appeal be made to the Maoris themselves. I ask the Maori members in this House to stand up and say whether the Maoris in their districts have any feeling of love for and sympathy with the honourable member for Waitotara. Now we may come to these Native meetings. The honourable member for Napier first objects to the Native Committees having any duty to perform. As I understand him he wishes to have the Native Committees abolished. He would give them no power. Well, it is the most extraordinary thing of all that this should come from an honourable member who wants local self-government, but who says to the Maori race, "You shall have no local government at all." What is a Native Committee but a form of local self-government given to the race? The honourable member quoted a story about a certain trial by a Native Committee as an illustration that the Maoris are not fitted to have local self-government. Is the honourable gentleman aware that he need not have gone to the Maoris, but that he could have gone to any of the primitive races and found the same thing there? Even if he had read one of the hooks that are pronounced holy, he would have found illustrations of the same thing among all primitive people. But this wonderful story was coming out in which there was a man called an unfortunate co-respondent. I am not aware what misfortune befell him. I thought it was to be some charge against my colleague the Native Minister. I thought that there was some fault to be found with his administration, and that is why I interrupted the honourable member and asked the date. It then appeared that it happened some time when some other person was in charge of Native Affairs than my colleague; so that it could not be a charge against him. This Maori Committee settled the matter in a way which the honourable member disliked. They apparently punished the co-respondent by taking all his goods. Well, if the honourable member had been a juryman on such a case in Court I do not know that he would not have done the same. The honourable member for Wallace asks, "How about the husband?" We do not know all the evidence. Perhaps they found that the husband had been the means of the guilt of his wife, and they punished him also. The Native Committees were created by special Act, and certain powers were given to them by this Legislature. The Act was introduced by the honourable member for Waitotara, and it gave enormous powers in some respects to the Committees. They deal with arbitration up to £20, and their decision is final as soon as filed in the Resident Magistrate's Court. They have power to decide a great many cases—even questions of succession can be referred to them. I apprehend that the honourable member, in getting that Act passed, meant it to be operative, and the Native Committees were to be a form of local self-government for the Maoris. Now, my honourable colleague, when he travelled through the Native districts, urged them to adopt this mode of procedure and carry out the local self-government given to them by the Legislature. Was anything wrong done in that? The only other wrong thing that was spoken of was the increase of representation. I have not hesitated to state that if we are to give the Maoris equal rights with ourselves they ought to have equal representation with ourselves in Parliament. I said so when the Hon. Mr. Taiaroa was in this House many years ago, and I say so still. I say that the Maoris, if they are to stand on a level with us, ought to have equal representation. I now come to this question of the Crown and Native Lands Rating Act. I ask honourable members from the South—who have been appealed to half a dozen times in this speech—to really appreciate what is meant. It simply means this: that we are to have a large territory of millions of acres put under this Act, which means that the Native rates are to come out of the Consolidated Fund for the purpose of expenditure in the North Island. I will now deal with another matter; and I was surprised that the honourable member for Napier, with his know-ledge of the whole affair, should fall into such page 13 a blunder. He talks to-night about unconstitutional practice. He says that some pledge was made that a certain Proclamation was not to be issued over Native lands. When my honourable colleague was speaking to the Natives he also was in ignorance of the law; and that is, perhaps, why no letter was ever written. The honourable member was going to produce the letter. That reminds me of another letter in olden times that was never produced. There is no letter to produce; and why? I will explain to the House. The whole of this King country—Kawhia, East Taupo, and West Taupo—was exempted from the operation of the Crown and Native Lands Rating Act by the honourable member for Waitotara. It is done in the statute itself. There was therefore no need of a letter; the pledge was given in the Act itself. The Act itself declared that there was to be no rating of these lands; and I apprehend that, when the Minister was going to the Natives to ask them to open up their lands, and consent to have roads made through them, he had a right to say to them, "The Legislature has declared that this land shall not come under the Crown and Native Lands Rating Act, and, if you allow this land to be opened up by roads and railways for settlement, I shall not propose that the Crown shall go back on its own words and repeal this Act." That was all that was done; and I ask this House, is it going to extend the limits of the Crown and Native Lands Rating Act, after seeing the returns laid on the table showing the expenditure for that purpose in times past? I apprehend, not. The honourable member says, "Repeal the Act." Why repeal it? He wants some system of taxation for Native lands, and I shall come to that presently. The honourable member for Napier told us that there was to be a system of Maori landlordism in the future, and that no land would be sold. Is that in the Bill? I tell the Maoris—as I would tell Europeans, especially any who are not careful of their means, with no thrift—"If you go away and sell ail your land, how are you to maintain yourselves and your families? You should keep some land." What are the Maoris to be left? Are they to be left landless? Who is then to maintain them? Will not their maintenance fall on the State? I say it is not fair to the Maori race to ask them to sell all their land. They should have sufficient reserves made to maintain them. Let me here say, incidentally, that I was glad to hear from the honourable member that he apparently disagrees with such a thing as landlordism. Well, we will apply that to Europeans. If it is wrong to have Maori landlordism, I apprehend that the pakeha landlord is quite as difficult to deal with as a Maori landlord, and we should have no such thing as landlordism in the colony hereafter. Does the honourable member mean that? Is the honourable member prepared to advocate that there shall be no landlordism in the colony? Let the honourable member be consistent and say that our land laws and system of taxation are to be so framed that there shall be no European landlords any more than Maori landlords. Now, as to the North Island Railway, what is our position with regard to it? The honourable member apparently thinks that, in forming the North Island Railway, it was our duty to take the land from the Maoris, without compensation, by force.

Mr. Ormond.—No.

Mr. Stout.—Then what else could we do? We proclaimed the land under the Public Works Act. We said to the Maoris, the same as to Europeans, "We shall pay you for the land we take." And Wahanui, with a generosity which European landlords do not always show, said, "We will give you the land for nothing." The honourable member for Franklin North apparently looks surprised now, and I am not surprised that he should be astonished. Practically, the land will be got for nothing—that is, the land actually re-quired for making the railway. Wahanui said that, so far as the land in his tribal territory was concerned, it should be given for nothing; and I say few Europeans would have been so generous. But what does the honourable gentleman mean? He says we are not to take the land by force. How, then, were we to get possession of the Maori land? We could only get possession of the Maori land by dealing with the owners, and we cannot deal with the owners till we know who the owners are, and we cannot know who the owners are till the land has gone through the Court. That is the exact position. And let me quote to this House a statement made by an honourable member who is not on our side in politics, who pointed out what would be the effect of any attempt to take lands by force, or in any way except the way in which we are proceeding. I refer to the Hon. Dr. Pollen. This is from his speech on the Native Lands Alienation Restriction Bill of last session. He said,—

"If the Government set themselves, at this particular time, obstinately to ignore the views and desires of these people, then a land league will be formed in the whole district, and they will get no land at all; and, if the railway has to go through—and it will have to do so—it seems to me that it will have to be pushed through at the point of the bayonet."

I apprehend that no member in the North Island will say that Dr. Pollen does not know as much about the North Island and the Maori feelings as any member of this House, and he pointed out what we ourselves saw, that, if there was any chance of our getting the Northern Trunk Railway made, any chance of getting the land for settlement, we should have to try to meet the views of the Native owners, unless, indeed, the colony wanted another Native war on its hands. And this was not only the only way to get the Northern Trunk Railway carried out, it was also the righteous way to do it. What right have we to treat the Maoris differently from the way we should treat Europeans? What right have we to say, "You must give up this land without compensation"? page 14 What right have we to ignore their views, their feelings, and their desires? Are they not men? Have they not feelings like us? What right have we to ride rough-shod over them, to have no care for their feelings or desires? I say the only way to get the land for the railway was to meet them, show them we meant to act fairly by them, and then, no doubt, they would be willing to do what I believe they are willing to do now—to throw their lands open for settlement, and to give them up to us on being compensated. Let me now come to another part of the Bill. Let me contrast the scheme of this Bill with the scheme of my honourable friend. The honourable gentleman has asked honourable members to deal with this question independently of party. So do I ask them; and I have no doubt, if they do so, how they will decide. What is it that this Bill proposes? This Bill proposes that land shall only be sold in one particular way. The honourable member proposes that land shall only be sold in one particular way. We are agreed on that. We propose that the land should be sold through a Board. The honourable member proposes that the land should be sold through a Board. We are also agreed on that. The constitution of his Board is the present Waste Lands Boards of the colony, on which the Natives have no voice, regarding which the Natives have no voice. We propose, on the contrary, that the Chairman of the Board shall perhaps be the Waste Lands Commissioner, but that the Natives shall have representatives upon these Boards. I ask, is that fair? Would it be fair to the Native race that you should sell twelve million acres of their land, and that they should have no voice in the selling of it? Would that be just? I appeal to any honourable member to say if it is just that the Natives should have no voice in the disposal of their own lands.

Mr. Ormond.—Appoint them on the Boards.

Mr. Stout.—"Appoint them on the Boards!" Well, we will suppose they were appointed to the Hawke's Bay Board: would the honourable member like that? Would he like them dealing with the disposal of European land? I think it is better that Native and European land should be kept distinct in that respect. If the Natives were put on the Board, I will tell you how they would be put: they would be put so that they would be overruled by the Europeans, who would thus have the management of their land. That would not be honest to them; it would be giving them a semblance of representation without the reality. The honourable member said it was to be given to representative bodies to manage. Well, Sir, is he in favour of the Waste Lands Boards being elected? We shall have that discussed on the Land Bill, and I understand that some members of the House wish the Land Boards of the colony to be elected, and I hope the honourable member will support that proposal. Our proposal is simply that the Maoris should have some voice in the disposal of their lands, though their lands are to be disposed of under the Waste Lands Act. What else is the difference between us? The honourable member talks about pre-emption. Does he really mean pre-emption? Does he mean that the State should buy the land from the Maoris, and that the only land that is sold by the Maoris is to be sold to the State? Sir, if that were so, this would be a Bill with a borrowing clause. We are told that we should not introduce any more Bills with borrowing clauses; but what would be the borrowing power required if that were carried out? We should need, if we are to have the North Island settled, how much? We should have to borrow millions a year. What has been the result of the Native-land-purchasing in the past? I defy any member to say that it has been a success. It has been an utter failure. We are, then, I say, shut up to this position: that we must take care the Native lands are disposed of under the Waste Lands Act, which will sell on deferred payments, which will give pastoral or perpetual leases; and is it unfair, when we remember whose land is being sold in that way, that the Natives should have some representation on the Board? Then, there is only one other point of the Bill that I will touch upon, and it was not referred to by the honourable member. The question is asked, What are the Committees for? what have they to say in the matter? Well, you cannot take the land by force; and, suppose a hundred persons are interested in a block, how are you to get the consent of all to its sale or lease? Surely it would be better to create a corporation for the block and say that the three, four, or five Committeemen should give their consent, than to say that the hundred people should give their consent. The difficulty in the past has been to get all the people to give their consent: that has been the great block in dealing with Native lands, that purchasers have been unable to get the consent, except after many years. I therefore say that, though the honourable gentleman meant to object to the Bill, he apparently accepted its principle. I do not wonder at his saying he would not move an adverso vote; for, if his speech is analysed, it will be seen that he accepts our proposal for a special commission, that he agrees to the sale under the Land Act, and that the only point of difference is that he would give the Natives no voice whatever in the management of their land, while we propose to give them a considerable voice. The next point is the question of taxation; and the honourable member would have the Maoris taxed. Suppose the Maoris cannot pay their taxes. What then? Can the Maoris pay taxes? Certainly not? What would be the result? The past has proved that they cannot pay taxes. You have passed the Crown and Native Lands Rating Act; and what does that measure mean? It is a declaration by statute on the part of this House that the Maoris cannot pay taxes, and that the Consolidated Fund has got to pay them. Are you to impose taxes page 15 on Maoris who cannot pay them, and when they do not pay them are we to sell their land by the rate-collector? Are we to resort to that practice in the future? Do we want a cessation of Maori troubles, or an increase? Is there a Native Minister who would say that the whole of the lands of the North Island are to be rated, the owners not having been ascertained over millions and millions of acres, and that you are to do as you would with European lands the owners of which are absent—to put a certain rate on the land, and sell the land for the rates without perhaps giving any notice to the owner, and in that way get the land into your own hands? I say that no Native Minister who will be appointed for years and years to come will ever carry out such a system, and it is a mockery, a delusion, and a snare to tell the House that any such system can ever be given effect to. And let me point out that the Natives do pay considerable sums to the revenue that Europeans do not pay. Whenever a transaction in Maori lands takes place there is 10 per cent, of the value of that and taken for the Consolidated Fund.

An Hon. Member.—Out of the European's pocket.

Mr. Stout.—Out of the European's pocket? Does the honourable member think that the European does not make considerable allowance, knowing that this has to be paid, when he comes to deal with his Maori client? Was not that proved by my honourable colleague when he gave the amount the European had given for the land, and the amount at which it was assessed for the purpose of the property-tax valuation?

An Hon. Member.—There was then a good title.

Mr. Stout.—"There was a good title!" I am glad the honourable member has made that remark, because it shows that, for want of a proper system, the Maoris have been robbed, and have only got a third or a fourth of the value of their land. That is the meaning of it. But I will put it in another way. If the honourable member says that as soon as it becomes European land it acquires an additional value, nothing having been done to improve it, but simply because it has a good title—if that is what he means, then I say that as soon as the Maori has executed the conveyance and got a good title, after the ownership has been determined under this system the Maori will get the proper value of his land, and the Government will get its proper 10 per cent, of revenue from that land, and it will be better for both. Let me say, on this question of taxation, that you cannot tax the Maori except in the way you are doing now, and that that is a considerable tax. I should like to know how Europeans would like, when they sell property, to have 10 per cent, of the value of the land deducted. That tax which the Maori pays will be equivalent, if this Bill is given effect to, to all the taxes the Europeans are called upon to pay; and I say that taxation is impossible in any other way. I would now, however, say one or two words in reference to dealing with the Maoris, Sir, I say that you cannot inaugurate any system of pre-emption except the system of preemption in this Bill. This is a kind of preemption, because the Maoris are not allowed to sell their land to whom they please. The honourable member for Napier said that that system must end. I defy any honourable member to point out any flourishing settlement of small farmers in the North Island where the land has been bought direct from the Natives. In all the small-farm settlements the land has been bought from the Crown. A small section now and then may have been obtained direct from the Natives, but the land so bought has fallen almost entirely into the hands of big speculators and large land-rings. And this Bill is to put a stop to that. Now, what are we to do? Some Bill is necessary. The question whether the Natives should have any representation in dealing with their land or not is practically the only point on which objection has been made to this Bill by the honourable member for Napier. And I ask this House, how are we to look at this Maori-land question? I apprehend that we have to deal with the Maoris, to give them more help, more sympathy, more fair-play, if you like the words better, than we give to people of our own race. We have a great duty to fulfil in reference to them. We have to see that they are not only not treated harshly by us, but also that they do not come to look upon our race as a race intending to crush them by depriving them of their rights. Our Bill, I apprehend every one will admit, is fair to the Maoris. Now, is it fair to the Europeans? What do the Europeans get under this Bill? By it Europeans in the South as well as in the North are put on an equal footing, which they have never been on up to the present time. By this Bill every one will be equally able to obtain Native lands in the North Island. In the past only those who could employ a host of pakeha a-Maori interpreters, or could themselves speak Maori, have been in a position to get Maori land. By this Bill all colonists will be put on a level in that respect, and all will have an equal right to purchase Maori land; and Maori lands will now be sold, as they should have been in the past, according to the land laws of the colony, and they will be open to all in the colony to compete for. I will not take up the time of the House further now in referring to this Bill. I am glad, I repeat, that the honourable member for Napier asks the House to consider this Bill independently of party; and I have no doubt whatever that, if the Bill is treated independently of party spirit, at the end of the discussion this Bill will be admitted to be a good Bill in the interests of both races in this colony.