Parliament being now in session, I propose addressing some remarks to you on the subject of the statutes affecting Native Lands. To criticise at any length the results of the legislation of the past on this subject is not altogether my object. That object rather is to review the laws as they at present stand, and offer such suggestions as appear to me desirable to make them more efficient and workable.

Let me here quote a fable by which the Duchess of Orleans illustrated the character of her son, the Regent:—"All the fairies save one had been bidden to his cradle. All the gossips had been profuse with their gifts; one had bestowed nobility, another genius, a third beauty. The malignant elf who had been uninvited came last, and, unable to reverse what her sisters had done for their favourite, had mixed up a curse with every blessing."

This fable, to some extent, can be applied to Native Land legislation. Nowhere else do we find such startling contrasts; nowhere else do we find measures adopted which are fatal to the object intended; no where else do we find the intended cure accelerate the progress of the disease sought to be cured. The influence of the malignant elf is apparent through it all. That influence appears to control the whole course of Native Land legislation. Nor does the Legislature appear to be able to rise to the exigency of the situation. That it learns little from the efforts of the last twenty-four years is apparent from the legislation of last session, which intensifies the evils sought to be guarded against. No more striking instance of this can be given than the ame ndments making provisions for dealings with Native Lands. I refer to Section 12 of "The Native Land Court Act, 1886, Amendment Act, 1888," and Section 5 of "The Native Lands Frauds Prevention Act, 1881, Amendment Act, 1888," which, in their effect, prohibit dealings in any degree with Native Land if held in blocks owned by more than twenty owners.

Of land still in the hands of the Natives, whether "Native Land" or otherwise, the proportion of first-class land bears relatively a small proportion to land of fair average quality; that, again, bears a still smaller proportion to the area of poor land. To insist on these lands being cut up into parcels with twenty owners would, in many instances, be to make the surveyors the owners. There are blocks of land which no surveyor would accept in payment for his services if he had to cut them up as required by the Act.

If the object to be arrived at is to make provision for ascertaining who are the owners of Native Land, and also to provide a measure whereby Natives will derive a benefit from these lands, that object will not be attained by imposing conditions which are prohibitory to all dealings, and consequently tend to lessen, instead of increase, the value of the estate.

Considering the matter from the point of what is the best course to adopt in the interests of the Native owners—which really is the question involved—the desired end is not to be attained by an attempt at one-sided legislation, whether looked at from an European or Native point of view; nor will the object be attained by the imposing of conditions which involve an outlay altogether out of proportion to the value of the benefits to be derived. "Ko te whenua, ko te ora" (Yes, the land is "the life" if utilised). Land which is an encumbrance is not "life," nor has "life" that pregnancy of meaning to us which it had to our ancestors. With no cereals, quadrupeds represented by one species of rat and the domestic dog, having only the kumara, tare, and uwhi to cultivate, as the most common vegetables of the present day wore unknown, to them, indeed, the land was life, and if it is to mean life to us, those means will not be attained by a protection which amounts to prohibition, and which by the imposition of expensive conditions, tends to depreciate the value of the land to the Natives, so that the price received for the land sold bears a very small proportion relatively to the total cost, and which also affects the rental for lands to be leased. If Natives are to receive a fair benefit from their lands, greater freedom will have to be allowed in land dealing. First of all, secure to them land restricted from sale for their own occupation and for leasing, and facilitate free and unrestricted dealings in the residue.

For the Natives to get rid of a portion of their lands will be to increase the value of that retained. Nor would it follow that if greater freedom in land dealing were permitted the Natives would part with all their lands. Individuals might do so, but not the whole bulk of the people, and in considering the question of greater freedom in Native Land dealing, we should not shut our eyes blindly to the incidence of taxation.

From some figures supplied to me I find that in Cook County alone Native land within five miles of a track amounts to 293,000 acres, of the rateable value of £250,000, the Native rates on which now total £7000.

This sum is chargeable on the land. If the land is leased or sold, these charges are recouped to the Treasury. The Crown and Native Land Bating Acts, under which the Treasury advanced these rates to the local bodies, are now repealed. With taxation at strangulation point, we can hardly expect the colony to put up with the loss of the moneys advanced, or that Native Land, in some form or other, be not made to contribute to the revenue of the colony. And if the principle of equality in land tenure is over to have practical effect, the attainment of that object will be assisted by having a Native Land law which facilitates the individualisation of title, and which permits land page 5 dealing under simple safeguards. If, in addition to this, you limit the operation of the Native Land Court to lands hold under Memorial of Ownership and Certificate of Title, leaving titles of Crown Grant or Land Transfer title to the operation and protection of the ordinary law of the Colony, and if, further, you abolish special Maori representation, thus equalising the political privileges and rights of the two races, the effect will be to sound the death-knell of the so-called "Native difficulty." To show that the acquisition of Native Land is not all "beer and skittles," let me give you some details of expenditure in the acquisition of a block of land in this district prior to 1886:—

	£	s.	d.
Survey of block of 6000 acres	212	0	0
Hapu subdivisions into five parcels	94	0	0
Further subdivision to cut out for non-sellers and minors	70	0	0
Amount paid to owners at 5s. per acre	1292	0	0
Cost in acquiring the same	325	0	0
Native duty, assesed at 14s. 5d. per acre	358	0	0
Incidental expenses and interest on outlay for six years to date of order of freehold tenure	400	0	0
	£2751	0	0

These figures are instructive as showing the comparatively small sum the Natives receive in proportion to the purchaser's outlay. To obtain five shillings, an outlay of one shilling and five pence is incurred for surveys, and if it had been necessary to subdivide the land into parcels of twenty owners, an additional fourpence per acre would have been added to the cost of survey. I shall have something to say on the question of the Native duty further on. It is, however, owing to this Native duty, to unnecessary and stringent enactments, which increase difficulties in obtaining partition of purchasers' interests, that Natives do not obtain a fair price for their lands. Let me here add that if it is desirable to limit the area of land purchased by an individual or company, greater freedom should be allowed as to areas to be taken up under lease.