land has been mankind’s preferred and most durable form of wealth storage. The authors of the Treaty would have been very conscious of this widely accepted belief, for they identified the possession by Maori of land as their foremost tangible asset.

Subsequent Crown actions, however, from the adoption of land identification systems through to the provision of infrastructure and services, favoured the individualisation of land ownership and individual reward for human endeavour on the land. These developments, integral to the functioning of a commercial consumer society, were in stark contradiction to the cultural imperatives of traditional Maori society. The ease with which Maori land, including specific reserves, could be converted into individual interests and thence into cash to enable participation by Maori in this new and seductive consumer society, precipitated a downward spiral of asset loss and eventual tribal poverty. The subsequent alienation of such a high proportion of traditional Hauraki lands has deprived Hauraki Maori of their share of the ever increasing community-created land value, which the region enjoys. This consequence is in direct contradiction of the objectives and purpose of the Treaty, and the aspirations of those who signed it.

ES.15 Overall Finding

We conclude that Hauraki Maori have been marginalised in their own rohe by the transfer of land and resources to others, including Maori of other iwi. Moreover, we find that this outcome, particularly the wholesale purchasing of Hauraki lands, was the consequence of policies and laws deliberately introduced and sustained well into the twentieth century, and that this falls short of the Treaty requirement that land and other taonga be acquired through informed consent. In this context, we note particularly that:

► the Crown has conceded that Hauraki iwi lost large areas of land during the raupatu of the 1860s and have received very little compensation, either in land or money;

► the Crown has also conceded that the MacCormick commission of 1939 to 1940 found that Maori who sold the freehold of land already subject to gold-mining cessions were not well advised and that a substantial sum should be paid in redress, which sum has not been paid; and

► most Hauraki land was acquired by the Crown under pre-emptive (monopoly) right, and Hauraki Maori generally did not have the option to lease their land or to sell it on an open market, nor to make well-advised community decisions on the terms and conditions of sale.

In these matters, and other matters discussed in our report, we find that Treaty principles of dealing fairly and with utmost good faith have been breached, that substantial restitution is due, and that the quantum should be settled by prompt negotiation.