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

recommended by MacCormick be granted to enable them to raise their general standard of living and to aid them in education, farm development, and the rehabilitation of their returned servicemen. There was intermittent official recognition subsequently that a `moral obligation' had been created by both MacCormick and Fraser, and that it was unsatisfactory for the Crown to rely on a strictly legal defence to deny the claim. There was growing appreciation, too, that the terms of past examination of the issue had been strongly weighted in favour of the Crown. The settlement of the Hauraki claim was not considered a matter of priority, however, and the more sympathetic Governments invariably fell before any steps towards making a compensatory payment had been completed.

Resident site licences

Resident site licences had been set up under nineteenth century mining legislation to provide residential holdings for the mining population (see pp. 172–175). Mining had largely ceased at Thames and Coromandel, but the area remained under the Government's jurisdiction and the warden continued, even in the 1920, to grant licences under the general legislation. By this stage, the licence gave the holder of it the equivalent of a renewable lease to Maori land for trivial rents and for purposes totally unrelated to mining activities. In the late 1960s, 51 licences were identified as still operating on Maori land, generating a total rent of $81 on property with an unimproved value of $20000.

The Government's attention was drawn to the matter on a number of occasions, both by its own advisors and by Hauraki Maori. Prichard during his inquiry into Mac Cormick's recommendations had, for example, privately informed the Minister of Maori Affairs that the owners of the properties held under such licences had a 'definite grievance' which probably would be the 'subject of a meritorious claim' sooner or later. Despite ongoing Maori complaint, and while the trend of policy was towards doing away with differentials in mining law regarding the treatment of Maori and Pakeha lands, there was considerable reluctance to interfere in any way with the interests of third parties. Thus, the Mining Tenures Registration Act 1962 abrogated the Government's power to cancel licences for breach of the conditions of issue, guaranteeing a virtually perpetual tenure. And when the Mining Act 1971 renounced the Crown's rights under the deeds of cession, the resident site licences were preserved. Maori were forced into negotiation, and into court action, to try to prevent the continuing occupation of their lands on this tenure. When their action before the High Court failed, Maori reluctantly accepted the Government's proposal to buy out lessees of sites on which there were no buildings so that the land could be returned. In occupied sites, however, this step was considered impossible, and the Government offered other lands in exchange or to buy out the Maori owners at current unimproved valuation, with compensation for lost income, and the fact that they had been placed in a position in which they had no alternative but to agree to sell.

20