THE CROWN, THE TREATY, AND THE HAURAKI TRIBES, 1880–1980

Government's role was three-fold. It made the laws which governed the protections on reserved lands, administered the applications for the removal of restrictions against alienation from the title, and frequently, was itself the purchaser. The trend of legislation was towards making it easier to have restrictions removed so that an alienation could take place, most especially, if the purchaser was the Government. Three particular issues were involved: the streamlining of procedures for the lifting of restrictions, the diminishing requirements for owner consent, and the growing ease with which the Crown could buy such land. Eventually, the entire structure of restricted title was dismantled.

The legislative onslaught on the reserved lands was initiated by the Atkinson Government with the passage in 1888 of the Native Land Administration Act and the Native Land Court Act. This legislation signalled a new phase of 'free trade' in Maori land, enabled the Native Land Court to remove restrictions, and reduced requirements for unanimous consent among the owners. That year, also, the Crown by means of the Native Contracts and Promises Act specifically divested itself of its trust for the Waikawau reserves so that they could be sold. The Native Land Laws Amendment Act 1890 chipped away at requirements for owner consent, as did the Native Land Purchase and Acquisition Act 1893 which, with the Native Land Purchase Act of the preceding year, also provided for easier removal of restrictions when the Crown was the purchaser. The Native Land Act 1894, passed as a consolidating measure by the Liberal Government, reduced the level of owner consent even further to one-third only, provided that the Governor gave consent in the case of restrictions which had been placed on the title prior to 1888.

These legislative moves were followed by an upswing in the removal of restrictions on the title of Hauraki land. As legislation began loosening restrictions, the official consciousness of the need to ensure that Maori in Hauraki held onto remaining lands also fell away. In the early 1880s, after the finalisation of the extensive purchases undertaken in the 1870s, administrations were particularly aware of the rapid decline in the holdings in many parts of the region. Restrictions on lease might be lifted but both Bryce and Ballance, as successive Native Ministers, generally vetoed further transfer of the freehold of Hauraki lands out of Maori hands. This was particularly the case at Te Aroha. Even so, they were prepared to reverse that policy if the 'public good' was deemed to be concerned. Thus, Bryce endorsed the lifting of restrictions on town lots at Paeroa to enable gifts to the Church and to the Crown for public buildings, while legislation was passed to also authorise the alienation of Te Aroha township sites for a school, 'public uses' and 'public streets'. This was followed by lifting of restrictions to allow the Government to purchase the land surrounding the mineral springs area, at a cheap rate, for an endowment to the Domain Board.

While the Native Department, and thereafter, the Justice Department retained responsibility for cases involving reserves created prior to 1888, decisions about the removal of restrictions on title moved into the jurisdiction of the Native Land Court. Both the capacity and the willingness of the Native Minister and his Department to veto transactions, as Ballance and Bryce had done, declined accordingly. Most attention was paid to whether the proportion of owners required under legislation had been met and whether the price was fair, not whether Maori should hold onto those lands. The

12