Sei sulla pagina 1di 12
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 vA angles 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 all to 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 chief when 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 a could 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 6 genuinely 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 a adds, ‘(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 give these 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 10 colleagues 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

Potrebbero piacerti anche