Chapter 2: Statement of Claim [3. Nga Hara—The Grievances]
title so as to facilitate the rapid acquisition of land including those lands in Waiheke, Mercury Bay/Whangapaoa, Coromandel, Wairoa and Orere (western side of the Firth of Thames) and Waitekauri from the few persons named on the title by the Native Land Court; knowing that such rapid extinction of Hauraki title was inconsistent with the interests of the individuals named and the broader collective on whose behalf those individuals ought to have held their title.
The failure and/or refusal of the Crown to ensure that the Native Land Court correctly identified all parties with an interest in lands and the failure of the Crown to intervene in the circumstances of the discriminatory and divisive practices of the Native Land Court, including the exclusion of Hauraki iwi from the award of title to Te Aroha which led to several decades of bitter dispute.
The introduction by the Crown of a system which inevitably forced Hauraki into debt through the necessity of entering into the expensive and often protracted process of contesting claims in the Court in order to protect title, which in turn required the sale of some or all of the land investigated in order to meet the debts incurred; such debts being significant factors in the acquisition of lands at (inter alia) Piako and Te Aroha.
The practice of the Crown that a survey must be carried out before title to a block could be decided and the inevitable imposition of a lien over the land in favour of the Crown for the cost of the survey; the use by the Crown of survey liens to force the sale of interests in the land surveyed in order to meet survey debts incurred; the failure of the Crown to protect Hauraki from the exploitation of survey debt and liens by private purchasers; such survey debts being a significant factor in the acquisition of lands in (inter alia) Whitipirorua, Wharekawa East 1 and 3, Omahu, Otama East, Otama West and Mangakirikiri blocks.
(3) The failure and/or refusal of the Native Land Court, acting on behalf of the Crown, to accommodate Maori concepts of kaitiakitanga and trusteeship in the construction of title; and in particular:
The failure and/or refusal of the Native Land Court acting on behalf of the Crown to utilise s. 24 of the Native Lands Act 1865 which allowed for limited continuation of hapu ownership of lands through the imposition of the "ten owner rule," and the treatment of the grantees as tenants in common who could sell their share without the agreement of fellow owners.
The continuation of the application of the "ten owner rule" and the tenants in common principle by the Court, despite the enactment of s. 17of the Native Land Act 1867 which provided for the inclusion of all customary owners on the title.
The entrenching of the application of the tenant in common principle by the Native Land Act 1873 which destroyed legally binding trusts
34