Crown Policy - Crown Purchases and Native Land Laws
The Crown has accepted that it had a duty under the Treaty of Waitangi to
- Ensure European settlement occurred in an orderly fashion,
- Respect Maori preferences concerning land ownership,
- Act in the utmost good faith toward Maori,
- Ensure Maori retained sufficient land for sustenance and growth.
And, that the alienation of Maori land and the operation and impact of the native land laws had a number of consequences, including
- a significant loss of land by some Maori communities, with some becoming virtually landless,
- The removal of a key resource, contributing to a breakdown of Maori communities and hindering their effective participation in society,
- Community dispersal, resulting from the fragmentation of land ownership.
Te Uri o Hau's Claims
The specific claims made by Te Uri o Hau concern the actions of the Crown in reviewing land purchases prior to 1840, Crown purchases prior to 1865, the operations of the Native Land Court in the 19th century and land administration structures and practices in the 20th century.
In 1842 the Chiefs of Te Uri o Hau and Ngapuhi ceded to the Crown between 2,200 and 3000 hectares as punishment for Maori action against a storekeeper believed to have desecrated an urupa and removed human remains. No payment was made for the land.
Crown purchases between 1854 and 1865 saw 110,000 hectares alienated from Te Uri o Hau, around 60% of the hapu's total land holdings in the Otamatea and Pouto areas. Only three reserves were established following these purchases and, of those, two were alienated soon after.
Te Uri o Hau also believe the operation of the Native Land Court in Te Uri o Hau's rohe was prejudicial to Maori land owners wishing to retain their land. Reserves set aside following sales often included wahi tapu, but were inadequately protected from alienation in spite of their owners' wishes. A Validation Court was employed in the area that sought to 'validate' incomplete dealings in Maori land. A disputed sale of 815 hectares was resolved in favour of purchasers and against the wishes of Te Uri o Hau.
Taonga were also removed from wahi tapu in the Wairoa-Kaipara District and the Pouto Peninsula without permission prior to enactment of legislation aimed at protecting taonga in 1901.
In the 20th century Te Uri o Hau believe they were disadvantaged by land administration structures and practices that saw some Te Uri o Hau land owners retain few legal powers over their own property. Land development schemes in operation during this century also saw further alienation and produced results that fell well below the land owners' expectations.
ENDS
