The phase of co-existence, c.1830-60

The Hauraki region had early contact with the European economy. Its natural resources, above all its kauri timber, were much sought after by pre-1840 traders. The relationship continued and intensified when nearby Auckland became the capital in 1840. Local tribes became quickly aware that desirable consumer goods beyond the reach of their current technology were at hand, above all iron goods and textiles; these soon became `necessaries'. Production was stimulated to provide a medium of exchange. Although a demand was also created for goods which were inessential, if not positively deleterious (alcohol, guns, processed foods), this phase of cohabitation of two unlike even antagonistic economies was mutually advantageous. The social order of Hauraki for time out of mind remained intact as tribes earned the wherewithal to satisfy their consumer demands by recourse to the traditional, co-operative methods of work to produce foods—vegetables, fruit, pigs and poultry—and to act as timber millers and gatherers of flax, firewood, timber, and (later) kauri gum.

The phase of exploitation, c.1860 onwards

This later phase which destroyed the mutuality of benefit coincided with the discovery of gold on the Coromandel Peninsula, the Waikato land war and its associated blockade of the Gulf, the exploitation of mines and of forests by European labour and capital—particularly joint stock companies. Invariably, when a decision was to be made by the Crown as to whose interests should prevail: those of the resident Hauraki tribes or those of the settler community, primacy was always accorded to European-settler need.

As a result Hauraki Maori were forced to support themselves by means that denied them the opportunity to adapt, in their own way, their traditional modes of production so that they could incorporate themselves, in time, in the new market economy without violence to their society. Instead, they were obliged to earn income in ways that corroded the whole social structure:

•   through the bypassing of co-operative labour;

•   through the failure of Crown agents to recognise traditional rights of ownership, the benefits resulting from miners' rights, rents (in mining settlements), and land sales (within Hauraki rohe) were distributed in a way that overlooked the interests of legitimate parties;

•   by increasing dependence on unearned income from rents, miners' rights etc, the Crown brought about the neglect of cultivations;

•   advance payments and provision of rations, by Crown agents like Mackay no less than private buyers, inflamed the tendency of sellers within hapu to part with lands, and in the case of certain chiefs to indulge in wasteful emulation.

2