communities had received little benefit from the improvement schemes and lost the use and enjoyment of valued riparian lands. Compensation of £1605 was paid, and further proposed takings of Maori land were not proceeded with. We are not able to gauge the adequacy of the compensation on the information available, a matter partly attributable to the lack of record as to precisely which of the land affected was Maori land and which was non-Maori land.

In general, we find that the official notification procedures for the taking of Maori land were inadequate and disadvantaged Maori owners. This is partly the consequence of the creation, by the Crown, of a complex system of multiple ownership and the vesting of control of fractionated interests in the Maori Trustee, a Crown official, rather than in Maori tribal authorities. Relative to the weight and resources of the Crown compared to the limited resources of multiple private owners, we consider that Maori were disadvantaged in the matter of public works takings, and their remaining lands an easy target for development purposes.

ES.13 Impacts on Maori Uses of Lands and Waterways

We have received a great deal of evidence from claimants about the impacts upon customary usages of coastlines, rivers, swamps, and forests of modern industries, supported by Crown policies which owed little or nothing to consultation with Maori. The declaration of the Waihou and Ohinemuri Rivers as sludge channels under the Mining Act 1891, following the introduction of the cyanide process for extracting gold from ore, is the classic case. The felling of forests and use of streams for rafting timber, the drainage of swamps (especially the Piako Swamp), and the overfishing of foreshores and harbours are other examples of material damage to Maori food resources and disregard for Maori customary values and kaitiakitanga.

The Crown has acknowledged the validity of elements of these claims.⁹ In particular, Maori had been left with ‘some expectation’ that their lands and waters outside the goldfield cession areas would not be affected by mining, and they were ‘less likely [than non-Maori] to be able to utilise the few protections that existed within the system’. Maori interests were ‘more likely to be considered of little account’ by the mining industry. There were attempts by the Crown to mitigate the impacts of mining but these ‘did not address the issue of food supplies, waahi tapu and spiritual concerns’. While it would have been preferable to consult and negotiate sooner, the needs and demands of the mining industry were such that ‘to some extent the government was forced into a reactive mode’. We welcome the Crown’s concessions on these matters.

9. Document AA1, pp 220-221