in the light of MacCormick’s observation that the purchases of ceded land were made when the goldmining industry was in decline and that, ‘if considered at the time they were entered into, [they] would not appear such bad bargains as they appear in the light of after events’ (when the industry recovered). Moreover, the Crown does not accept that the calculation by Michael Copeland (consulting economist for the claimants) of the present-day value of the MacCormick recommendation provides some sort of benchmark for redress: ‘Factors to be taken into account when determining the nature and extent of redress provided in settlement [are] more appropriately addressed in settlement negotiations’.⁵ On this matter:

► we consider that, in view of the long delay in implementing the MacCormick recommendation, the Crown’s concession is welcome;

► we agree that the nature and extent of the redress should be addressed in settlement negotiations; and

► we note that in its purchases of auriferous land the Crown did pay a premium as against the generality of land (in the order of five shillings an acre, as against two shillings to three shillings an acre in the 1870s, and between 10 shillings and £3 an acre, as against five shillings an acre by 1900).

However, we also believe that the occasions when Maori vendors made informed and considered choices between selling the freehold (and thereby losing the mining revenue) or retaining the land and the mining revenue were rare, and mostly came late in the nineteenth century. Many of the purchases resulted from dealings by Crown agents with individuals for their undivided interests in land titles, followed by application to the court for a partition of the land and an award to the Crown of its proportionate interest in the title. The community as a whole often had little or no opportunity to make a considered decision as between leasing and selling. Maori owners were not well advised, if they were advised at all, and undoubtedly made many bad bargains. In view of this, we believe that the MacCormick recommendation should be implemented fully and in a generous spirit.

(7) Other twentieth-century developments

The Mining Act 1971 declared gold and silver to be the property of the Crown. The Crown at last relinquished its rights over any remaining land still subject to nineteenth century mining cessions, but maintained a right to authorise access for mining on private land as if it were Crown land, and maintained a right to authorise access for mining on private land as if it were Crown land. The Crown Minerals Act 1991 qualified that right, generally requiring the consent of owners for mining on their land. The claimants have been critical of the formulation of both Acts, but we consider that there was reasonable consultation by the Crown in the shaping of the 1991 Act. There was undoubtedly a prejudicial effect to Hauraki Maori from the fact that fees for residence site licences, granted from as early as the 1860s, were not revised to reflect market values. Following protest and litigation by Hauraki Maori, a settlement was negotiated with the Crown in 1980. We have received submissions that the compensation provided was inadequate but the evidence does not, in our view, provide grounds for reopening the 1980 settlement.

5. Document AA1, p 28