0 valutazioniIl 0% ha trovato utile questo documento (0 voti)
55 visualizzazioni12 pagine
The reasons for introducing the 1998 Maori lands Legislation, voiced by parliamentarians, are many and varied. This writer has decided to arrange examples of reasons given during the Parliamentary debates into the broader categories or types of arguments outlined below. The first category of reasoning is that of, 'it is our right' or 'because we have asked' (many times - and for a long time now!) for autonomy, recognition, control of our lands.
The reasons for introducing the 1998 Maori lands Legislation, voiced by parliamentarians, are many and varied. This writer has decided to arrange examples of reasons given during the Parliamentary debates into the broader categories or types of arguments outlined below. The first category of reasoning is that of, 'it is our right' or 'because we have asked' (many times - and for a long time now!) for autonomy, recognition, control of our lands.
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Formati disponibili
Scarica in formato TIF, PDF, TXT o leggi online su Scribd
The reasons for introducing the 1998 Maori lands Legislation, voiced by parliamentarians, are many and varied. This writer has decided to arrange examples of reasons given during the Parliamentary debates into the broader categories or types of arguments outlined below. The first category of reasoning is that of, 'it is our right' or 'because we have asked' (many times - and for a long time now!) for autonomy, recognition, control of our lands.
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Formati disponibili
Scarica in formato TIF, PDF, TXT o leggi online su Scribd
Helena McKeever
48.323 The Government, the Maori and the Land
Danny Keenan
25 October 1999.
(Please note: all three digit numbers in brackets refer to page
references from the NZPDs in the Book of Readings. Singular digits
refer to endnotes).
REASONS GIVEN BY PARLIAMENTARIANS FOR THE INTRODUCTION OF THE 1995
MAORI LANDS LEGISLATION.
The reasons for introducing the 192@ Maori Lands Legislation,
voiced by Parliamentarians and recorded for prosperity in the New
ealand Parliamentary Debates, are many and varied. Such reasons,
and the priority given them by the various key proponents, provide
hts inte the
contemporary readers with valuable in:
understandings, attitudes and fundamental purpose of the men who
made the concessions, offered the compromise and brokered the
consensus (if tentative and conflicting? inherent in the Maori
Councils Act and Maori Land Administration Act. an analysis of
these reasons also allows a better appreciation of the political
environment such men worked in at the turn of the century and the
pressures and prejudices they faced. Because of the large number
of reasons recorded from numerous politicians (James Carroll, Hone
Heke, Prime Minister Richard Seddon, Wi Pere and Alfred Cadman,
for example - many of whom spoke at length on more than one
occasion, and none of whom deserve neglect) this writer has
decided to arrange examples of reasons given during the
Parliamentary debates inte the broader categories or types of
arguments outlined below, rather than focusing on the different
vAangles used by each parliamentarian - although this is touched on
and is very interesting.
The first category of reasoning (used somewhat tentatively
initially by Carroll but more forcefully by Heke) is that of, ‘it
is our right’ ar ‘because it is good for us’ or ‘because we have
asked’ (many times - and for a long time now!) for autonomy,
recognition, control of aur lands etc. Examples of this can be
seen when Carroll describes the purposes of the Maori Councils
Bill as, ‘an effort on the part of the Maori race to organize
themselves.
appoint councils and committees, through which they
could regulate their social and local affairs (364)....for the
preservation of the people....for the better regulation of their
domestic aftatra and sanitary arrangenents and generatly for their
welfare and well-being as a people’ (365). Y
Menber for Northern Nacri, Hone Heke, states this reasoning mare
succinctly} ‘This Bi1l was desired by the Maori people of the
Island” (364). Wr. Talaron similarly states, ‘I believe it will be
ot great benefit to the Native people’ (569). Heke also argued
that informal committees alresty provided guidance when natives
gathered on the occasion of deaths or for hui anyway, and that
methods for the purpose of carrying out rules and
conditions....Then, in the event of troubles arising between
Maoris and Europeans the chiefs should have power to deal with it
without carrying it into the
W-courts of the colony’ (366).Provision far ‘power to regulate the sanitary conditions of the
Maori Kaingas' was further approved of by both these men -
(366,369) with Taiaroa suggesting that provision for the conduct
of government-paid medical practitioners, ‘who when the Natives go
to call them...sometimes disappear into their houses and are not
to be found’, should also be included in the Bill (369). Taiaroa
gives an example of the ‘I have been waiting a long time’ argument
just prior to this when he explains, ‘(I)n 1871...a motion was
proposed...the House agreed... (yet) it is only now at this late
period that I find the present government have brought forward the
Bill carrying the proposals which were then submitted to
pariiament? (369).
Equality reasons were another ‘rights’ related, but perhaps
under-utilised, theme in these initial debates over the
introduction of the Maori Councils Bill. However, these are best
seen in the more assertive and passionate arguments forwarded by
Maori parliamentarians during the debates surrounding the
introduction of the Maori Lands administration Act. Carroll,
especially, seems to have come to life in this second round of
talks - with the ‘controlling versus acquiring’ land issue,
inherent in this act, no doubt contributing to a much more heated
parliamentary atmosphere (1).
Carroll forwards the following arguments particularly
effectively: ‘Are we interfering with you? Are we dealing with
your property? Do we touch yours in any way?....When there is a
labour question touching the interests of the masses, you are allto the front of your representative capacities to see that some
legislation is passed for the amelioration thereof....What they
ask for is only a species of local self-government, exercised in a
manifold degree by their European neighbours. Will you deny them
that right and privilege? That is what they are asking for in this
BAI". ‘Let me tell the House that the object of this Bill is to
stop that pernicious system of purchase by the Government. It is
to stop any further purchasing of Native Lands by the Crown’
(428). ‘We are not responsible for the blunders of the past’.
‘They have a right to seek their awn betterment’. ‘Do not farget
that, after all, the lands proposed to be dealt with are theirs
and not yours’ (421).
Hone Heke points out further ‘we have a right’ types of
reasoning when he notes that the land remaining with the natives
is insufficient for ‘our maintenance and support and the
maintenance and support of our descendants’. The ‘Natives want a
certain portion of this land for the purpose of cultivation and to
wake homes for themselves - Is that a selfish wish?", he
challenges. He also reasons that ‘legislative provisions to enable
(Maori) to obtain money at a low rate of interest’ would enable
them to cultivation thefr lands, and that as to ‘thrift’, ‘the
wish of the Natives is also in that direction.” (399) Later, he
expands on this point saying, ‘(wie can make more money by
improving the land ourselves than by taking your suggestion and
J leasing the land to the Europeans’ (425). He also criticised the
‘present land-law, which says any owner of land is his own chiefwhen he desires to sell land’, for ‘the chief of the people cannot
Prevent the unthoughtful Maori trom selling’. For these reasons,
Heke saw the Naori Lands Legislation Bill as a step
the right
direction - though he also pointed out such Legislation was not
all he wanted (424). This was another argument in his favours he
had made significant compromises. Like those with reservations on
the ‘opposite side’ he viewed the Bill as a starting place. Wi
Pere states simply and directly that, ‘we want an absolute stop
put to all sales of Maori Land’ (427). As he supports the Bill, he
Presumably sees it as a step forward in this direction. Henare
kaihau explains that Maori support the Lands Legislation Bill,
because they can see that in this Bill provision will be made
whereby they will be able to lease their lands to their
satisfaction. Kaihau also reasserts that ‘(tihis desire of the
Maori people throughout the country is not of today’ and ‘this
Bill {s thoroughly understood and appreciated by the Macris
throughout the Island (411).
The second category of reasons for the introduction of the dual
1988 legislation are of the kind that Maori Parliamentarians gave
when pushing the benefits of this legislation for those other than
themselves; reasons to benefit settlers, government and their
fellow parliamentarians who had the power to vote Bills in.
Examples of this include the way Carroll argues, ‘the extent of
the absorption of the Native race by intermarriage with
Europeans’, ‘(t)he number of persons engaged in industrial
pursuits’, and ‘the number and nature of stock’ owned by Maori
acould be accurately determined by district councils and recorded
for government benefit. The ‘great deal of trouble’ that arose in
teonnection with the dog tax’ that ‘strained’ race relations and
‘cost the country thousands of pounds’ could be ‘obviated by this
legisiation’ (364). Carroll alsn emphasised the stops and checks
and ultimate government authority in the legislation: ‘ (Maori)
would have to report to the Agriculture Department any disease in
stock within their vicinity...they would come under the Public
Health Act and Public Health Minister’, they would ‘work together”
with the Agricultural Department to eradicate noxious weeds (365).
With regards the Land Administration Act Carroll also states, ‘ne
do not lose sight of what is desirable in the interests of the
colony? that is to say, we help to carry on the true settiement in
the colony by a system of leasing’ (391) and,
pity-for-the-‘'weaker vessel’-type reasons (few of these were
6genuinely empathetic). Second, were reasons showing haw this
legislation could help settlers} settlements themselves. Third,
reasons asserting that Maori have ‘rights’ - also tied in with
notions of ‘this is not all that they ask’. Fourth, this
legistation is experimental, it can be changed, it is not a big
deal, it is better than the current situation and, again, this has
been a long time coming. The reasons given in each of these
categories are many, so brief examples of each category are
outlined below.
A key example of paternalistic reasoning is given by Alfred
Cadman when he describes the Maori Councils Bill as offering
something to ‘occupy their (Maori) attention’. He also warns,
‘Satan finds mischief for idle hands to dos ...the billiard-table,
the racecourse, the totaliser, gambling, hotels, and drink’, and
perceives ‘older people wasting their substance in many ways,
holding meetings that cost hundreds of pounds, (that) as a rule,
50 far as one can gather, all (end) in smoke’, with a similar
futility (367). Instead, praise is given for the way he saw Maori
‘trying te conform to the European institutions such as we have
amongst ourselves’ (368). The Bill's promotion of ‘education and
instruction....moral well-being. .
proper registration of dogs
‘we have but a small remnant of the Maori race’ (371).seo tn serps pt fs ae mprige
Cece ee
Cee
aeazceaanrceaccccnrcceeae sn
SSE LLL
EEL
Coen ncceccrcnceeeeee ee es
eee ee
EE
eee en ee
eee LE
eee
” Ue
eee UL
eae
Se
ee et hr vn? wg
eee
Tene ee
an
reo oun ei to tn fv
oa a nytt nes Dasa os one
Se ELSE
en Le
ease
Will be thrown open to settlement in many districts’ (494). He
aadds, ‘(if this Council gets hold of and settles a million acres
of land, without its being any cost to the State, ne shall have
saved increasing the public debt of the colony’ (495). He also
points out, the Lands administration Bill ‘does not perhaps go so
far as some members would wish it to go, but it goes a great deal
further than the great majority of the Naoris wish it ta go in
respect of alfenation’, and reassures with, ‘the Government
practically has a majority on the Board, so that it is to that
extent safeguarded as far as the colony is concerned’ (496, 497).
Seddon concludes, ‘this Bill...in my opinion...will lead to the
settlement of large tracts of land here in the North Islandj...it
Will lead to subdivision’ (498). Mr Napier, Member for Auckland
City, in similar vane asserts, ‘it would be a calamity if for
another twelve months the progress of the North was checked and
hindered by the country being kept locked up and unavailable for
settlement. We have hundreds of young men waiting to get farms’
(ap,
Instances of support for the two Bills by European
parliamentarians arguing in favour of Maori ‘rights’ were less
frequent than the above kinds of reason, but nonetheless were
forwarded from some quarters. Nember for Wanganui, Mr. Willis, for
example, asked, ‘that people would be more justified in leasing
their land?? (416). ‘With respect to this dealing through the
Board:
well, we are doing the same thing ourselves in our own
methods of government’, Cadman recalls (444). Mr. Bonar on the
Maori Councils Bill thought it, ‘a great thing to be able to givethese peaple the right to govern themselves’ (368), and Mr Rigg
welcomed this same Bill, ‘because I have felt for a long time that
the Natives deserve some greater consideration at our hands than
they have received’ (378).
The final category of reasons given by parliamentarians can
best be summed up by the NZPD account of Seddon’s closing
arguments ‘he had made so many attempts to put it (the Lands
Legislation Bill) right that he must now ask the House to let it
go as it was’ (447). Similarly, from Seddon, Carroll and Lang: ‘At
all events we cannot be worse off than we are’ (494, 422, 423).
And, from Mr Atkinson, member for Wellington City: ‘the Bill is
likely, 1ike a previous experiment...to be an absolute dead-
letter. If it remains a dead letter it will not do much harm’
tas.
Thus, the reasons given by parliamentarians for the
introduction of the 1998 Legislation, reflect not only the
differing aims ministers sought to achieve, but a variety of
indirect tactics used to further them. These aims were basically
that Maori sought government approval for control of lecal/social
affairs, and desired control (and retention) of their land,
whereas the Crown remained cautious about giving even limited
local powers (making sure that government stops and checks were in
place), and desired to end land locks, to lease lands and
ultimately to individualise and permanently acquire Maori and.
Seddon's paternalism towards Maori may be viewed, to some extent,
as a tactical argument designed to persuade more hard line
10colleagues to better accept the legislation for example - though
he was also at pains to point out how the legislation could
benefit European land seeking constituents (arguments surely
unreassuring for Maori). Carroll played a similar middle-road
role; bending to those in power in an attempt to further Maori
aims (or perhaps a little more ambiguously his aims for Maori).
The critisism of Carroll has often been that he bent too far. It
is important to acknowledge, however, that his efforts at
consensus and concession reflected an imbalance of power in a
Crown and Maori relationship and perhaps a commendable generosity
and trust on his part - the lack of return of which resulted in
his increasing disillusionment and support of a more militant
approach. As always, it is important to remember that hard-line
European ideas of ‘why not take the land we desire by some act of
parliament anyway’ could equally be balanced by Maori hard-liners
who dismissed the idea of seeking government approval and favoured
their own parliament, control and strength through separatism.
These pressures are only hinted at in the words quoted above, but
widen our understanding of the context within which these
parliamentarians’ reasons for the introduction of the 1990
Legislation were given.
ENDNOTES
(1). Keenan, Campus Course Notes.
NOTE: A11 three digit numbers bracketed in this essay refer to
pages in the Book of Readings where the NZPD’s are printed.
n&
BIBLIOGRAPHY.
Brooking, Tom, Lands for the People. The Highland Clearances and
the Colonisation of New Zealand, 1996, pp.131-156 (Ch.8).
Keenan, Danny, 49.323 Bool of Readings
The Maori Councils Act 1989, pp-353-362.
2) warn 1998, Maori Councils Bill, pp.363-372.
3) The Maori Lands Administration Act 1999, pp.373-388.
4) NZPD 1998, Maori Lands Administration Bill, pp.389-448.
Keenan, Danny, Campus Course Notes.
Le Geyt, Andre, Past Essay for 48.323.
Notes of Meetings between Ranfurly, Seddon, Carrol, Native chiefs
ete. about Native Land Legislation during 1898 and 1899.
Wellington, Government Printer, pp.3-11.
Williams, J., Politics of the New Zealand Maori: Protest and
Cooperation, 1691-1999, 1969. pp.98-161 (Ch.7).
Cualign Hela-e
A bey rot 03109, prema te es ho Your
CMG) ban Werkert elOrts a yo pope
See foe Me by When Mes & Ye.
Tike