THE CROWN, THE TREATY, AND THE HAURAKI TRIBES, 1800-1885

the Government's jurisdiction for as long as it wished. Indeed, the Hauraki gold field lands were to remain within the Crown's mining jurisdiction until the passage of the Mining Act 1971, long after mining activity had ceased.1 The cession of mining rights had unexpected implications for Hauraki Maori: the impact of mining on the community at Thames, on cultivations, and on the food sources of the foreshore, and, of Government jurisdiction on the exercise of their rangatiranga over those lands, was considerable. In particular, their lands were now subject to mining legislation and regulation which could be altered at the whim of Government, without referral to Maori interests, or the commitments that had been made by negotiated agreement, such changes often being carried out over Hauraki protest that they transgressed the terms of their consent.

Of particular note, was the Government's introduction of long-term mining leases instead of the system based on annual renewal of miners' rights which had been set out in the 1867-1868 cessions in order to satisfy the purported needs of capital investment which demanded greater security of title. Maori objected that, while they were 'quite willing to render every facility for the outlay of capital, and desire[d] to carry out all arrangements heretofore entered into by them ... the agreements ... did not empower the Governor or his delegate to lease lands for mining purposes.' The main architect of the cession deeds supported Maori in this view. Mackay advised the Government that 'the agreements with the Natives would require amendment, before it would be quite clear that these conferred on the Governor the power to lease lands' for long-term periods, and that the new regulations would reduce the revenues payable to right-holders. Although the Government rejected these complaints, it seems likely that Maori, in this period, were not receiving their full due under the deeds of cession. The more important point was, however, that the introduction of new forms of mining tenure constituted a unilateral change of negotiated arrangements even over Maori objection and the advice of the Government agent in the best position to interpret the understandings reached and the impact of such change on the 'native revenues'.

Thames foreshore

[pp. 156-165] At the same time, Hauraki rights to the foreshore were undermined by court and Government action generated by the imperative to gain control of the mineral resources lying under the surface of the Kauaeranga mudflats. Initially a degree of legislative recognition had been given to Maori rights in foreshore lands. Section 9 of the Gold Fields Act 1868 empowered the Governor in Council to bring land below the high-water mark into the compass of its gold field jurisdiction, but stated that this would be `deemed to be land over which the Native title [had] not been extinguished'. When companies began to apply for licences to mine under the mudflats, both Maori and Mackay agreed that the area was not covered by the Kauaeranga cession. Richmond recognised that Maori would challenge any Crown assertion of ownership of that area,

1 For discussion of twentieth century changes in mining legislation see Part Two, and R. Anderson, Goldmining: Policy, Legislation, and Administration,' Waitangi Tribunal Rangahaua Whanui series (working paper: first release), 1996.

12