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

in his view, 'the fact of the Natives signing on the one hand and the Queen on the other hand agreeing upon a treaty ... show[ed] completely that the land, property and every other property contained thereon ... belonged to the Natives.'

There were two mining-related issues of particular importance for the Hauraki people in the twentieth century. One relates to their efforts to regain complete control over the gold field lands, played out in the context of blocks still occupied under resident site licences which had been issued by the gold field warden; the other to their struggle to gain redress for the Crown's past actions with regard to mineral rights, the cession agreements, and the acquisition of the gold field blocks.

The MacCormick Commission

In the 1930s Hauraki iwi recommenced petitioning the Government about the past conduct of the Crown with reference to mineral rights, the payment of revenues, and acquisition of the gold field blocks. The petitions which expressed a deep but largely undefined sense of loss were referred to the Native Land Court for inquiry and report under section 22 of the Native Purposes Act 1935. The resulting inquiry became known as the MacCormick Commission.

From the beginning the Hauraki petitioners were hampered in presenting their case. The Crown's officers largely dictated the terms of the inquiry, and the Crown's ownership of minerals and right to legislate as it saw fit was assumed as given. There was no examination of the implications of the Treaty of Waitangi or the question of a native right to sub-surface resources. The difficulties and costs of properly researching and presenting a case were acknowledged to be prohibitive, and the Crown denied the petitioners access to the Government record on the grounds that this would 'enable them to frame ... more direct allegations', might result in misinterpretation, give rise to 'a lot of allegations that might be fanciful but very difficult to answer' and 'seriously embarrass' the Government. Thus, the MacCormick Commission—and indeed, all later enquiries into the question—looked at the case from one viewpoint only, with evidence provided exclusively by Government officers, and 'the rules of the game' also set by the Crown.

The major direction of the petitioners' case developed along lines which fitted in with the requirements of the law, and with the sources of information available to them: that the deeds of cession had guaranteed the gold field revenues to the signatories and their heirs for all time, which intention had been recognised by subsequent statutes; and that the deeds had created a fiduciary obligation on the part of the Crown which it had failed to fulfil. That failure lay not only in the poor administration of gold field revenues but also in the Crown breach of the principle that a trustee was not entitled to purchase any of the property in trust for his own benefit. Crown counsel countered with evidence showing that no fraud had been committed. Even though there might have been delays and endemic problems, the extant accounts showed that revenues had been paid out, that lands had been purchased not taken, and that the cession deeds created no trust, merely a `bargain for a right or easement'.