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

problems in the Government's administration of the original cession agreements as a result of bureaucratic incompetencies, the fragmentation of title to the land, and the introduction of new mining laws which effected the revenues generated by gold field blocks; the impact of that legislation on the ability of Hauraki Maori to withhold lands containing valuable sub-surface resources from the Government's jurisdiction; the inability of Maori to withdraw their lands from that jurisdiction even though mining had long ceased on them; and the unsuccessful struggle of Maori to gain redress for the Crown's earlier actions in opening the gold field, the subsequent failure to properly care for their interests in its management, and ultimately, in acquiring the complete freehold.

Administration of gold field reserves

It had been intrinsic to Maori agreement in handing over the administration of mining to the Government, that the revenues which they had been promised would be properly collected and distributed; but problems continued to plague the management of gold field revenues well into the 1930s. Those problems derived from two sets of circumstances: legislative changes which directly effected revenues generated on Maori owned blocks, and ongoing inefficiencies in the machinery of collection and distribution.

Evidence of problems in the actual administration of the revenues—of charges on Maori, long-term delays in payment, and the almost complete breakdown of mechanisms of distribution by 19000—has been outlined in this chapter. It is to be noted that by the 1920s over £2000 was outstanding in revenues which were 'unclaimed' because the mechanisms of payment had completely broken down. These monies were eventually applied to the general purposes of Ngati Maru and associated tribes, under section 17 of the Native Purposes Act 1935.

Of particular significance in terms of legislative impact was the passage of the Mining Act 1886 which altered requirements for miners' rights by increasing the area that could be held under them, and thus, also the revenues to be paid to the Maori owners. These changes were instituted over Maori protest, and Wilkinson, the Government officer of the time, who combined responsibilities for the native gold field revenue account and for land purchase, also gave strong support to the validity of their complaint. He pointed out the cession agreements had conveyed the impression that the Crown had been 'desirous at that time that the Natives should benefit as much as possible through having thrown open their lands for gold mining'. Yet the terms of those agreements had been altered to Maori disadvantage without their consent. In his view, their revenues had been reduced by as much as 75%, and the Government in taking this step had 'apparently overlooked, or ignored the fact that such action, though beneficial enough to the gold digger, was disastrous to the Natives ... and ... in a measure broke faith with them.' The effectiveness of legislative changes intended to redress part of the problem was undermined by limited application, on the specific direction of the Minister of Mines.

Hauraki Maori petitioned the Government over the matter, and in 1894, the Goldfields and Mines Committee acknowledged that they had sustained a loss through the Government's breach of the original agreement. The Committee recommended that the

16