Land Title System

A few concluding remarks may be directed at the land title system that has evolved over the past 100-odd years and to some of its more general consequences.

In 1865 the Native Lands Act established the Native Land Court to give effect to the guarantee offered by the Crown in the Treaty of Waitangi to determine Maori title to land in accordance with custom, and otherwise to safeguard it. Judicial interpretation of this Act produced a series of interim title decisions as between tribe and tribe, for which the critical evidence was tribal tradition and genealogical descent. The principle followed in the first investigations was to determine the primacy of the claim of one set of ancestors over and against another and then to accept into the title, with or without conditions as to occupation, all persons tracing descent from these ancestors. The relative interests of the persons listed was expressed in various ways, but all was done with the ultimate purpose of evolving a working basis for partition.

Such, in brief, was the method devised to transmute a Maori title system, once defined by its own nexus of codified values, into one now valid in English common law and accessible to commerce. These preliminary investigations were litigious and complex enough: but it was not long before succession, intermarriage, and partition brought the first instalments of a process that has ended in the chaos of multiple ownership and fragmented holdings. Beyond the rare cases of single ownership, separate blocks of land came to be held by a number, either as tenants-in-common, i.e., conjointly, with the same or unequal shares, or, where individual interests had been partitioned, as tenants in severalty.

“Consolidation”, referred to earlier, was the first effective measure designed to counteract the degeneration of titles. It was sound in theory and undoubtedly served to improve Maori titles to the point where they could be used to raise development finance. Nevertheless, so long as titles can proliferate at the death of each generation of owners, the process will be never ending.

More recent devices include:

1. “Conversion”, in which the Maori Trustee (formerly the Native Trustee) buys interests in Maori land less than £25 in value and sells them to individual Maori or to Maori incorporations.

2. “The £10 Rule”, in which the Maori Land Court (formerly the Native Land Court) vests the whole of a deceased person's interest in any one (or more) successor to the exclusion of any other.

This is done without payment to those excluded, providing the value of any excluded interest is not more than £10.

by Ian Hugh Kawharu, M.A.(CANTAB.), B.SC.(N.Z.), B.LITT., D.PHIL.(OXON.), F.A.O. Research Fellow, University of Auckland.

The Modern Era

The turn of the twentieth century saw the Maori people and their lands at the crossroads, in more senses than one. In so far as they were wishing to use their heritage in competitive agricultural production their hopes were being thwarted through lack of finance. Maori land legislation, which had pursued its own tortuous course independently of the vicissitudes of the Maori people for some 40 years after the Native Rights Act of 1862, appears to have done little besides ensuring that Maori land sales were at once simple and legally valid. In none was the settlement of the Maori upon his own land a primary consideration. The crux of the matter was that the so called “communal title” had proved to be an effective instrument for purposes of sale, but never for raising development loans. “Incorporation” was an early remedial device for overcoming this basic difficulty, i.e., the creation of a body corporate by a majority of owners in a title, acting through a committee of management, to raise funds on the security of the land for its development.

“Consolidation”, like “incorporation”, was another measure intended to overcome the handicaps inherent in Maori land titles. The method eventually adopted in the East Coast, Bay of Plenty, King Country, and North Auckland districts, was to gather into as few locations as possible the interests of individuals which had been scattered by their unrestricted succession to the interests of both parents. Fragmentation of Maori land titles was, and still is, the inevitable outcome of requiring none other than genealogical evidence to support a claim to an interest in a tribal estate.

In each consolidation scheme the opportunity was taken, first, to clear all encumbrances (legal and survey fees, unpaid rates, etc.) and, secondly, to make the new consolidated holdings conform to the demands of agriculture in regard to optimum size, access, water supply, and so forth. Judicially and socially the measure had to overcome some inertia to begin with, but as its positive consequences were seen and appreciated so it gathered momentum. By and large it enabled the closest approximation to be reached to individual or at least to compact family ownership in tribal land.

Statutes passed in 1903, 1906, 1909, and 1912 indicated a growing appreciation by the Legislature of the Maori need of aid in order to help himself. Enactments of these years made finance, at least, more readily available to the Maori, although prejudice against his titles died hard. Yet again, on the Maori side, many were deterred from involving themselves with mortgages, and of those who actually found assistance not a few contrived to do so without committing their land.

Maori Land Boards

Despite these innovations, to which had been added certain increased powers vested in the Native (Maori) Trustee, it was still impossible in 1925 to offer Maori land as a mortgage security until the title was complete and unencumbered. And the percentage of Maori land that fulfilled these conditions was negligible. Gradually, however, measures were taken to overcome this difficulty. In 1900 the Maori Land Administration Act brought District Councils into being. Comprised in part of elected Maori members, these Councils later became known as Maori Land Boards and had the prime responsibility of arranging leases of land vested in them by Maori owners in the various districts into which the country had been divided. In 1926, when Parliament recognised the urgent need to promote settlement, it granted permission to Maori Land Boards to lend moneys for development, while allowing the titles to the lands given as security to be adjusted later. But it was not until 1929 that Parliament finally addressed itself to the growing problem of Maori land use and, having done so, it gave authority to the Native Minister to develop and settle idle Maori land with funds provided by the Minister of Finance. Such areas as were to be developed in any given locality were brought under a specifically named scheme and owners, on agreeing to the plan of work, were then prohibited from interfering with it and from alienating any of the land involved.

Efforts in various directions were coordinated: in the field, there was the breaking in of virgin country and, in some instances, the reorganisation of haphazard practices where there had already been some agriculture. On the administrative side the consolidation of titles received systematic attention. Supervision was another critical aspect of the development, and often local Maoris, whose tribal prestige had already fitted them for leadership, acted in a liaison capacity between the settlers and the European agricultural supervisors. Later, training farms, now discontinued, were established on a small scale.

In the 34 years during which land settlement has been the responsibility of the Department of Maori Affairs, 455,230 acres have been grassed at an annual average of 14,400 acres, and some 2,200 farms have been thereby established. Development has varied from 22,100 acres in 1940 to 5,700 acres in 1945, 8,100 in 1961–62, and 10,064 in 1963–64.

Problems of Development

It appears now, however, that although young Maoris are offering themselves for selection for State assistance, the current standard required is beyond the majority of them. On the other hand some of the best qualified applicants are not land owners' nominees and, being “landless”, just cannot be settled. To date no way has been found around the impasse. In the first place there is too little land to offer those who have nothing other than the requisite skill for farming and, secondly, there are too few skilled applicants coming forward from those who have the land.

While the emphasis thus far has been laid on the positive results of the current era of Maori land settlement, the reckoning must also include at least one negative aspect. The reasons are at present obscure, but sizable tracts of land formerly well farmed under development have now reverted to second growth and have gone out of production.

Meanwhile, the incorporation of blocks with congested titles has continued independently of the State-sponsored land-settlement schemes. According to the 1960 Report on Maori Affairs, less than half out of a total of approximately 300 incorporations are “active” today. The contributing causes in many cases are commonly said to be due to inefficient administration – especially accounting – as well as the struggles of competing factions.

Despite the undoubted success of the State programmes of assistance there are still considerable numbers of Maoris who work their land indifferently. And it is from these families that increasing numbers are seeking external employment for wages, mainly to satisfy their consumer demands. Much thought must needs be directed to the problems posed by such land owners and others who remain seemingly indifferent to the use they make of their heritage.

Land Title System

A few concluding remarks may be directed at the land title system that has evolved over the past 100-odd years and to some of its more general consequences.

In 1865 the Native Lands Act established the Native Land Court to give effect to the guarantee offered by the Crown in the Treaty of Waitangi to determine Maori title to land in accordance with custom, and otherwise to safeguard it. Judicial interpretation of this Act produced a series of interim title decisions as between tribe and tribe, for which the critical evidence was tribal tradition and genealogical descent. The principle followed in the first investigations was to determine the primacy of the claim of one set of ancestors over and against another and then to accept into the title, with or without conditions as to occupation, all persons tracing descent from these ancestors. The relative interests of the persons listed was expressed in various ways, but all was done with the ultimate purpose of evolving a working basis for partition.

Such, in brief, was the method devised to transmute a Maori title system, once defined by its own nexus of codified values, into one now valid in English common law and accessible to commerce. These preliminary investigations were litigious and complex enough: but it was not long before succession, intermarriage, and partition brought the first instalments of a process that has ended in the chaos of multiple ownership and fragmented holdings. Beyond the rare cases of single ownership, separate blocks of land came to be held by a number, either as tenants-in-common, i.e., conjointly, with the same or unequal shares, or, where individual interests had been partitioned, as tenants in severalty.

“Consolidation”, referred to earlier, was the first effective measure designed to counteract the degeneration of titles. It was sound in theory and undoubtedly served to improve Maori titles to the point where they could be used to raise development finance. Nevertheless, so long as titles can proliferate at the death of each generation of owners, the process will be never ending.

More recent devices include:

1. “Conversion”, in which the Maori Trustee (formerly the Native Trustee) buys interests in Maori land less than £25 in value and sells them to individual Maori or to Maori incorporations.

2. “The £10 Rule”, in which the Maori Land Court (formerly the Native Land Court) vests the whole of a deceased person's interest in any one (or more) successor to the exclusion of any other.

This is done without payment to those excluded, providing the value of any excluded interest is not more than £10.

by Ian Hugh Kawharu, M.A.(CANTAB.), B.SC.(N.Z.), B.LITT., D.PHIL.(OXON.), F.A.O. Research Fellow, University of Auckland.

The Modern Era

The turn of the twentieth century saw the Maori people and their lands at the crossroads, in more senses than one. In so far as they were wishing to use their heritage in competitive agricultural production their hopes were being thwarted through lack of finance. Maori land legislation, which had pursued its own tortuous course independently of the vicissitudes of the Maori people for some 40 years after the Native Rights Act of 1862, appears to have done little besides ensuring that Maori land sales were at once simple and legally valid. In none was the settlement of the Maori upon his own land a primary consideration. The crux of the matter was that the so called “communal title” had proved to be an effective instrument for purposes of sale, but never for raising development loans. “Incorporation” was an early remedial device for overcoming this basic difficulty, i.e., the creation of a body corporate by a majority of owners in a title, acting through a committee of management, to raise funds on the security of the land for its development.

“Consolidation”, like “incorporation”, was another measure intended to overcome the handicaps inherent in Maori land titles. The method eventually adopted in the East Coast, Bay of Plenty, King Country, and North Auckland districts, was to gather into as few locations as possible the interests of individuals which had been scattered by their unrestricted succession to the interests of both parents. Fragmentation of Maori land titles was, and still is, the inevitable outcome of requiring none other than genealogical evidence to support a claim to an interest in a tribal estate.

In each consolidation scheme the opportunity was taken, first, to clear all encumbrances (legal and survey fees, unpaid rates, etc.) and, secondly, to make the new consolidated holdings conform to the demands of agriculture in regard to optimum size, access, water supply, and so forth. Judicially and socially the measure had to overcome some inertia to begin with, but as its positive consequences were seen and appreciated so it gathered momentum. By and large it enabled the closest approximation to be reached to individual or at least to compact family ownership in tribal land.

Statutes passed in 1903, 1906, 1909, and 1912 indicated a growing appreciation by the Legislature of the Maori need of aid in order to help himself. Enactments of these years made finance, at least, more readily available to the Maori, although prejudice against his titles died hard. Yet again, on the Maori side, many were deterred from involving themselves with mortgages, and of those who actually found assistance not a few contrived to do so without committing their land.

Maori Land Boards

Despite these innovations, to which had been added certain increased powers vested in the Native (Maori) Trustee, it was still impossible in 1925 to offer Maori land as a mortgage security until the title was complete and unencumbered. And the percentage of Maori land that fulfilled these conditions was negligible. Gradually, however, measures were taken to overcome this difficulty. In 1900 the Maori Land Administration Act brought District Councils into being. Comprised in part of elected Maori members, these Councils later became known as Maori Land Boards and had the prime responsibility of arranging leases of land vested in them by Maori owners in the various districts into which the country had been divided. In 1926, when Parliament recognised the urgent need to promote settlement, it granted permission to Maori Land Boards to lend moneys for development, while allowing the titles to the lands given as security to be adjusted later. But it was not until 1929 that Parliament finally addressed itself to the growing problem of Maori land use and, having done so, it gave authority to the Native Minister to develop and settle idle Maori land with funds provided by the Minister of Finance. Such areas as were to be developed in any given locality were brought under a specifically named scheme and owners, on agreeing to the plan of work, were then prohibited from interfering with it and from alienating any of the land involved.

Efforts in various directions were coordinated: in the field, there was the breaking in of virgin country and, in some instances, the reorganisation of haphazard practices where there had already been some agriculture. On the administrative side the consolidation of titles received systematic attention. Supervision was another critical aspect of the development, and often local Maoris, whose tribal prestige had already fitted them for leadership, acted in a liaison capacity between the settlers and the European agricultural supervisors. Later, training farms, now discontinued, were established on a small scale.

In the 34 years during which land settlement has been the responsibility of the Department of Maori Affairs, 455,230 acres have been grassed at an annual average of 14,400 acres, and some 2,200 farms have been thereby established. Development has varied from 22,100 acres in 1940 to 5,700 acres in 1945, 8,100 in 1961–62, and 10,064 in 1963–64.

Problems of Development

It appears now, however, that although young Maoris are offering themselves for selection for State assistance, the current standard required is beyond the majority of them. On the other hand some of the best qualified applicants are not land owners' nominees and, being “landless”, just cannot be settled. To date no way has been found around the impasse. In the first place there is too little land to offer those who have nothing other than the requisite skill for farming and, secondly, there are too few skilled applicants coming forward from those who have the land.

While the emphasis thus far has been laid on the positive results of the current era of Maori land settlement, the reckoning must also include at least one negative aspect. The reasons are at present obscure, but sizable tracts of land formerly well farmed under development have now reverted to second growth and have gone out of production.

Meanwhile, the incorporation of blocks with congested titles has continued independently of the State-sponsored land-settlement schemes. According to the 1960 Report on Maori Affairs, less than half out of a total of approximately 300 incorporations are “active” today. The contributing causes in many cases are commonly said to be due to inefficient administration – especially accounting – as well as the struggles of competing factions.

Despite the undoubted success of the State programmes of assistance there are still considerable numbers of Maoris who work their land indifferently. And it is from these families that increasing numbers are seeking external employment for wages, mainly to satisfy their consumer demands. Much thought must needs be directed to the problems posed by such land owners and others who remain seemingly indifferent to the use they make of their heritage.

Land Title System

A few concluding remarks may be directed at the land title system that has evolved over the past 100-odd years and to some of its more general consequences.

In 1865 the Native Lands Act established the Native Land Court to give effect to the guarantee offered by the Crown in the Treaty of Waitangi to determine Maori title to land in accordance with custom, and otherwise to safeguard it. Judicial interpretation of this Act produced a series of interim title decisions as between tribe and tribe, for which the critical evidence was tribal tradition and genealogical descent. The principle followed in the first investigations was to determine the primacy of the claim of one set of ancestors over and against another and then to accept into the title, with or without conditions as to occupation, all persons tracing descent from these ancestors. The relative interests of the persons listed was expressed in various ways, but all was done with the ultimate purpose of evolving a working basis for partition.

Such, in brief, was the method devised to transmute a Maori title system, once defined by its own nexus of codified values, into one now valid in English common law and accessible to commerce. These preliminary investigations were litigious and complex enough: but it was not long before succession, intermarriage, and partition brought the first instalments of a process that has ended in the chaos of multiple ownership and fragmented holdings. Beyond the rare cases of single ownership, separate blocks of land came to be held by a number, either as tenants-in-common, i.e., conjointly, with the same or unequal shares, or, where individual interests had been partitioned, as tenants in severalty.

“Consolidation”, referred to earlier, was the first effective measure designed to counteract the degeneration of titles. It was sound in theory and undoubtedly served to improve Maori titles to the point where they could be used to raise development finance. Nevertheless, so long as titles can proliferate at the death of each generation of owners, the process will be never ending.

More recent devices include:

1. “Conversion”, in which the Maori Trustee (formerly the Native Trustee) buys interests in Maori land less than £25 in value and sells them to individual Maori or to Maori incorporations.

2. “The £10 Rule”, in which the Maori Land Court (formerly the Native Land Court) vests the whole of a deceased person's interest in any one (or more) successor to the exclusion of any other.

This is done without payment to those excluded, providing the value of any excluded interest is not more than £10.

by Ian Hugh Kawharu, M.A.(CANTAB.), B.SC.(N.Z.), B.LITT., D.PHIL.(OXON.), F.A.O. Research Fellow, University of Auckland.

MAORI LANGUAGE

The Maori language of New Zealand is a Malayo-Polynesian language, a family of languages commonly divided into four sub-families, namely, Indonesian, Melanesian, Micronesian, and Polynesian. The New Zealand Maori language is part of the Polynesian sub-family of languages which form a very closely related group spoken for the most part within the Polynesian triangle. Thus Maori speech is a dialect of the language spoken throughout Polynesia and hence conveniently called the Polynesian language. The Polynesian group can be divided into east and west Polynesian sub-groups. New Zealand Maori is an eastern Polynesian language. The Maori dialects of Rarotonga, Tahiti, Hawaii, and all the islands of French Polynesia are very closely related to the Maori language spoken in New Zealand. There is rather less relation with the western Polynesian languages in Tonga, Samoa, and Niue, and still less to the Melanesian languages of Fiji.

New Zealand marks the southernmost limit of the Malayo-Polynesian family of languages. Within the last thousand years, either through accidental voyages or by purposive migration using traditional navigational methods, Polynesian speakers fanned out from the Society and Cook groups to Hawaii in the north, to the eastern Archipelagoes of French Oceania, and to New Zealand in the south.

In respect to actual origin, in spite of comparisons that have been made between selected words from Polynesia and the speech of some American groups, the linguistic evidence suggests that the spread of the Polynesian language was from the direction of Asia and not America. The existence of different dialects in New Zealand points to the speculation that the different waves of early settlement were from different dialect areas in central Polynesia. Only intensive archaeological and linguistic research within Polynesia as a whole can determine this.