Search Inquiry Documents

On 6 October 2023, the Waitangi Tribunal released The Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 Inquiry Stage 2 Report in pre-publication format. The inquiry was accorded high priority, reflecting the importance of the customary rights at stake and the immediacy of the Act’s alleged impacts on Māori. The Tribunal received 92 claims for the inquiry, and a further 80 parties were granted interested party status. Hearings were held between September 2020 and November 2021 before an inquiry panel comprising Judge Miharo Armstrong (presiding), Ron Crosby, Professor Rawinia Higgins, and Tā Pou Temara.

This report concludes the two-part inquiry. The first stage considered whether the procedural and resourcing arrangements put in place by the Crown to support the Act were Treaty-compliant and prejudicially affected Māori, whereas the stage 2 report focused on the Treaty compliance of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 itself.

The 2011 Act replaced its controversial predecessor, the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004, and restored customary title interests extinguished under the previous Act, introduced statutory tests and awards whereby customary interests may be identified, and provided for public access. Under the Act, Māori can obtain legal rights recognising their customary interests in the form of customary marine title or protected customary rights. The Act provides two application pathways for this purpose. Māori can apply to the High Court for a recognition order or engage directly with the Crown, or do both. In each pathway, applications for customary rights had to be filed by the statutory deadline of 3 April 2017.

The stage 2 report investigated whether the Act’s foundations, the Act’s mechanisms for recognising claimants’ rights, and the rights available under the Act themselves were Treaty compliant. Overall, the Tribunal found that the rights under the Takutai Moana Act did not sufficiently support Māori in their kaitiakitanga duties and rangatiratanga rights and failed to provide a fair and reasonable balance between Māori rights and other public and private rights. Therefore, the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 was in breach of principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. The claimants had been, and were likely to continue to be, prejudiced by aspects of the Act that breached Treaty principles.

To give effect to Treaty principles, the Tribunal recommended that the Crown make several targeted amendments to the Act based on the claims that had been heard and upheld. Among these were recommendations to improve the statutory test for customary marine title, to repeal the statutory deadline, to allow current applicants to transfer their applications from the High Court to the Māori Land Court, to increase the scope of the Act’s compensation regime, and to decouple the wāhi tapu protection right from the regime of customary marine title.

Haumaru: The COVID-19 Priority Report was the result of a priority inquiry focused on the Crown’s vaccination strategy and the shift to the COVID-19 Protection Framework (also known as the traffic-light system). The inquiry panel comprised Judge Damian Stone (presiding officer), Dr Tom Roa, Tania Simpson, and Professor Linda Tuhiwai Smith, and the hearing took place at the Waitangi Tribunal Unit’s offices in Wellington between Monday 6 December and Friday 10 December 2021.

Concerning the Crown’s vaccination strategy, the Tribunal found that Cabinet’s decision to reject advice from its own officials to adopt an age adjustment for Māori in the vaccine rollout breached the Treaty principles of active protection and equity.

Regarding the Crown’s COVID-19 Protection Framework, the Tribunal found that a new framework was necessary. However, the rapid transition into the framework, which happened faster than the Crown’s officials and experts recommended and without the original vaccination thresholds for each district health board being met, did not adequately account for Māori health needs. As such, Māori were put at a disproportionate risk of being infected by Delta in comparison to other popular groups. This breached the principles of both active protection and equity.

Additionally, the rapid shift to the COVID-19 Protection Framework put Māori health and whānau ora providers under extreme pressure and undermined their ability to provide equitable care for Māori. This was in breach of the principles of both tino rangatiratanga and options.

Finally, the decision to shift into the COVID-19 Protection Framework was made despite strong, unanimous opposition from the Māori health leaders and iwi that the Crown consulted. Further, the Crown did not consistently engage with Māori to the fullest extent practicable on key decisions in its pandemic response. These actions were in breach of the principle of partnership.

The Tribunal recommended that the Crown urgently provide further funding, resourcing, data, and other support to assist Māori providers and communities with:

• the continuing vaccination effort – including the paediatric vaccine and booster vaccine;
• targeted support for whānau hauā and tāngata whaikaha;
• testing and contact tracing;
• caring for Māori infected with COVID-19; and
• self-isolation and managed isolation programmes.

The Tribunal also recommended that the Crown improve its collection of ethnicity data and information relevant to Māori health outcomes and that it prioritise the work to improve the quality of quantitative and qualitative data on tāngata whaikaha and whānau hauā, in partnership with Māori disability care providers and community groups. The Tribunal recommended that all this data and information should be made public and be easily understandable and accessible, subject to relevant legislation.

Looking ahead, the Tribunal recommended that the Crown strengthen its monitoring regime to enable it to identify, in as close to real time as possible, whether or not its COVID-19 policy settings in relation to Māori were working as expected. This would enable the Crown to change those settings to achieve the desired and intended results and to remain accountable to its Treaty partner.

The Tribunal recommended both the paediatric vaccine and the booster vaccine rollout expressly prioritise Māori and be supported by adequate funding, data, and resourcing for Māori providers.

Finally, the Tribunal recommended that the Crown strengthen its engagement with its Treaty partners. The claimants and the Crown had begun negotiations about a new national collective to assist with coordinating the Māori pandemic response. The Tribunal recommended that any further engagement between Māori and the Crown, with this national collective and with other Māori groups, should give effect to tino rangatiratanga and be broadly representative of Māori. Key Ministers and Crown officials must also be involved.
 

Tino Rangatiratanga me te Kāwanatanga: The Report on Stage 2 of the Te Paparahi o Te Raki Inquiry, Part I is the outcome of 415 Treaty claims submitted by Māori of the Te Paparahi o te Raki (Northland) inquiry district. This district covers Hokianga, Whangaroa, Bay of Islands, Mangakāhia, Whāngārei, Mahurangi, and the Gulf Islands.

The claims within the Te Paparahi o Te Raki district were brought to the Waitangi Tribunal on behalf of individuals, whānau, hapū, iwi, and affiliated groups. They alleged that the Crown breached the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi in a range of ways, causing significant prejudice to them and their tūpuna. The Tribunal received the claims between 1985 and 2008 and heard them during 26 hearings from March 2013 to October 2017.

Tino Rangatiratanga me te Kāwanatanga focuses on claims and evidence relating to the nineteenth century. It follows the Tribunal’s stage 1 report, He Whakaputanga me te Tiriti/The Declaration and the Treaty: Report on Stage 1 of the Te Paparahi o Te Raki Inquiry, which concluded that the rangatira who signed te Tiriti in the Bay of Islands and Hokianga in February 1840 did not cede their sovereignty. Rather, they agreed to a relationship in which they and the Governor were to be equal, while having different roles and different spheres of influence.

The key issues addressed in this stage 2 report concern land, Māori–Crown political engagement, Crown military action in the claimants’ traditional rohe, and the Crown’s policies toward Māori land in the latter half of the nineteenth century. The Tribunal’s overall finding was that the Crown overstepped the bounds of its kāwanatanga (authority to govern) in Te Raki between 1840 and 1900, leading to the erosion of Te Raki Māori rangatiratanga.

The report begins by introducing the inquiry and the district, establishing the Treaty context for Te Raki claims relating to the nineteenth century, and describing Te Raki communities prior to 1840, before addressing the inquiry issues.

First, the report considers the steps the Crown took to declare sovereignty over the North Island and then all of New Zealand in two proclamations issued by the Queen’s representative Captain William Hobson in May 1840. The Tribunal found that these proclamations breached the principles of the Treaty, as Te Raki Māori who signed te Tiriti had not in fact ceded sovereignty. When negotiating te Tiriti, the Crown did not clarify to Te Raki Māori that it intended to establish a government and legal system under its sole control, nor did it explain that it would assert sovereignty over the whole country, the Tribunal concluded.

Secondly, the report reviews the Crown’s actions before and during the Northern War, in which Ngāpuhi clashed with British forces. The Tribunal found the Crown’s actions in serious breach of the Treaty. The Crown rejected opportunities to talk with Ngāpuhi leaders about their concerns that the Treaty was being ignored, and instead it took military action against them. Among other failures, it initiated attacks on pā and kāinga, made the surrender of land a condition of peace, and did not adequately consider the welfare of non-combatants. These Crown actions had severe short- and long-term effects on Ngāpuhi, the Tribunal considered.

Thirdly, the report considers the Crown’s investigations into pre-1840 land transactions (‘old land claims’). The Tribunal concluded that, prior to 1840, Māori had transacted land with settlers within the context of their own laws and that rangatira expected the Crown to seek their agreement on the nature, shape, and processes for any investigation into these transactions. However, after 1840, the Crown imposed its own processes for determining land rights in these investigations, supplanting the tikanga of Te Raki Māori without their consent. The Crown’s imposition of English legal concepts, its granting of absolute freehold title to settlers, and its own subsequent taking of the surplus were effectively a raupatu (confiscation) of Te Raki Māori tino rangatiranga over thousands of acres of their land, the Tribunal found.

The report then considers the New Zealand Constitution Act 1852, which transferred authority from imperial to colonial Government. The Tribunal determined that this Act breached Treaty principles. It did not allow for Māori representation in Parliament until four seats were added in 1867. The Crown had promised to protect Māori interests and independence under the Treaty, yet it failed to build these protections into the constitution. Instead, it progressively handed governmental authority to the settler population, fundamentally undermining the Treaty relationship. Governors Thomas Gore Browne and George Grey sought different solutions to provide for Māori involvement in the governance of their communities, such as the Kohimarama Rūnanga (a national rūnanga of Māori leaders) in 1860, and Grey’s district rūnanga (intended to provide limited powers of local self-government) in 1861. However, despite Te Raki Māori support for these initiatives, both were short-lived and gave way to directly assimilationist institutions such as the Native Land Court.

The report goes on to review the Crown’s land purchasing policies and practices between 1840 and 1865 and the introduction of the Native Land Court and native land laws in the 1860s. The Tribunal found various Treaty breaches relating to these Crown actions. The Crown’s imposition from 1862 of a new land tenure system that individualised title to Māori customary land, making it more vulnerable to partition, fragmentation, and alienation, was particularly devastating for Te Raki Māori, the Tribunal concluded. This system undermined community control over whenua, eroding the cultural, political, and economic organisation of hapū. It also brought large-scale land loss, with Māori retaining only a third of the inquiry district by 1900. The Tribunal found that the Crown’s nineteenth-century land policies inflicted deep and enduring damage on Te Raki Māori, and it noted the district remains one of the most economically deprived parts of New Zealand today.

Finally, the report considers the efforts of Te Raki Māori to assert their tino rangatiratanga in the late nineteenth century. It sets out the steps that Te Raki Māori and other northern hapū and iwi took to establish regular regional parliaments at Waitangi and Ōrākei. During the 1890s, the Tribunal noted, these groups helped lead attempts by the Kotahitanga movement to establish a national Māori parliament recognised by the Crown. However, the Crown rejected or ignored their proposals for Māori self-government, and it was unwilling to recognise any significant transfer of authority from colonial institutions. The Tribunal concluded that this was a historically unique opportunity to make provision in New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements for Māori tino rangatiratanga at a national level. It found that the Crown’s failure to recognise and respect Te Raki rangatiratanga over this period breached the Treaty and its principles.

The report ends with a number of recommendations to support the Crown and Te Raki Māori in future Treaty settlement negotiations. The Tribunal recommended that the Crown acknowledge the Treaty agreement it entered into with Te Raki rangatira in 1840 and that it apologise for its Treaty breaches. It also recommended that the Crown return all Crown-owned land in the district to Te Raki Māori; that it provide economic compensation; and that it enter into discussions with Te Raki Māori to determine appropriate constitutional processes and institutions at the national, iwi, and hapū levels to recognise, respect, and give effect to their Treaty rights.
 

Tino Rangatiratanga me te Kāwanatanga: The Report on Stage 2 of the Te Paparahi o Te Raki Inquiry, Part I is the outcome of 415 Treaty claims submitted by Māori of the Te Paparahi o te Raki (Northland) inquiry district. This district covers Hokianga, Whangaroa, Bay of Islands, Mangakāhia, Whāngārei, Mahurangi, and the Gulf Islands.

The claims within the Te Paparahi o Te Raki district were brought to the Waitangi Tribunal on behalf of individuals, whānau, hapū, iwi, and affiliated groups. They alleged that the Crown breached the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi in a range of ways, causing significant prejudice to them and their tūpuna. The Tribunal received the claims between 1985 and 2008 and heard them during 26 hearings from March 2013 to October 2017.

Tino Rangatiratanga me te Kāwanatanga focuses on claims and evidence relating to the nineteenth century. It follows the Tribunal’s stage 1 report, He Whakaputanga me te Tiriti/The Declaration and the Treaty: Report on Stage 1 of the Te Paparahi o Te Raki Inquiry, which concluded that the rangatira who signed te Tiriti in the Bay of Islands and Hokianga in February 1840 did not cede their sovereignty. Rather, they agreed to a relationship in which they and the Governor were to be equal, while having different roles and different spheres of influence.

The key issues addressed in this stage 2 report concern land, Māori–Crown political engagement, Crown military action in the claimants’ traditional rohe, and the Crown’s policies toward Māori land in the latter half of the nineteenth century. The Tribunal’s overall finding was that the Crown overstepped the bounds of its kāwanatanga (authority to govern) in Te Raki between 1840 and 1900, leading to the erosion of Te Raki Māori rangatiratanga.

The report begins by introducing the inquiry and the district, establishing the Treaty context for Te Raki claims relating to the nineteenth century, and describing Te Raki communities prior to 1840, before addressing the inquiry issues.

First, the report considers the steps the Crown took to declare sovereignty over the North Island and then all of New Zealand in two proclamations issued by the Queen’s representative Captain William Hobson in May 1840. The Tribunal found that these proclamations breached the principles of the Treaty, as Te Raki Māori who signed te Tiriti had not in fact ceded sovereignty. When negotiating te Tiriti, the Crown did not clarify to Te Raki Māori that it intended to establish a government and legal system under its sole control, nor did it explain that it would assert sovereignty over the whole country, the Tribunal concluded.

Secondly, the report reviews the Crown’s actions before and during the Northern War, in which Ngāpuhi clashed with British forces. The Tribunal found the Crown’s actions in serious breach of the Treaty. The Crown rejected opportunities to talk with Ngāpuhi leaders about their concerns that the Treaty was being ignored, and instead it took military action against them. Among other failures, it initiated attacks on pā and kāinga, made the surrender of land a condition of peace, and did not adequately consider the welfare of non-combatants. These Crown actions had severe short- and long-term effects on Ngāpuhi, the Tribunal considered.

Thirdly, the report considers the Crown’s investigations into pre-1840 land transactions (‘old land claims’). The Tribunal concluded that, prior to 1840, Māori had transacted land with settlers within the context of their own laws and that rangatira expected the Crown to seek their agreement on the nature, shape, and processes for any investigation into these transactions. However, after 1840, the Crown imposed its own processes for determining land rights in these investigations, supplanting the tikanga of Te Raki Māori without their consent. The Crown’s imposition of English legal concepts, its granting of absolute freehold title to settlers, and its own subsequent taking of the surplus were effectively a raupatu (confiscation) of Te Raki Māori tino rangatiranga over thousands of acres of their land, the Tribunal found.

The report then considers the New Zealand Constitution Act 1852, which transferred authority from imperial to colonial Government. The Tribunal determined that this Act breached Treaty principles. It did not allow for Māori representation in Parliament until four seats were added in 1867. The Crown had promised to protect Māori interests and independence under the Treaty, yet it failed to build these protections into the constitution. Instead, it progressively handed governmental authority to the settler population, fundamentally undermining the Treaty relationship. Governors Thomas Gore Browne and George Grey sought different solutions to provide for Māori involvement in the governance of their communities, such as the Kohimarama Rūnanga (a national rūnanga of Māori leaders) in 1860, and Grey’s district rūnanga (intended to provide limited powers of local self-government) in 1861. However, despite Te Raki Māori support for these initiatives, both were short-lived and gave way to directly assimilationist institutions such as the Native Land Court.

The report goes on to review the Crown’s land purchasing policies and practices between 1840 and 1865 and the introduction of the Native Land Court and native land laws in the 1860s. The Tribunal found various Treaty breaches relating to these Crown actions. The Crown’s imposition from 1862 of a new land tenure system that individualised title to Māori customary land, making it more vulnerable to partition, fragmentation, and alienation, was particularly devastating for Te Raki Māori, the Tribunal concluded. This system undermined community control over whenua, eroding the cultural, political, and economic organisation of hapū. It also brought large-scale land loss, with Māori retaining only a third of the inquiry district by 1900. The Tribunal found that the Crown’s nineteenth-century land policies inflicted deep and enduring damage on Te Raki Māori, and it noted the district remains one of the most economically deprived parts of New Zealand today.

Finally, the report considers the efforts of Te Raki Māori to assert their tino rangatiratanga in the late nineteenth century. It sets out the steps that Te Raki Māori and other northern hapū and iwi took to establish regular regional parliaments at Waitangi and Ōrākei. During the 1890s, the Tribunal noted, these groups helped lead attempts by the Kotahitanga movement to establish a national Māori parliament recognised by the Crown. However, the Crown rejected or ignored their proposals for Māori self-government, and it was unwilling to recognise any significant transfer of authority from colonial institutions. The Tribunal concluded that this was a historically unique opportunity to make provision in New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements for Māori tino rangatiratanga at a national level. It found that the Crown’s failure to recognise and respect Te Raki rangatiratanga over this period breached the Treaty and its principles.

The report ends with a number of recommendations to support the Crown and Te Raki Māori in future Treaty settlement negotiations. The Tribunal recommended that the Crown acknowledge the Treaty agreement it entered into with Te Raki rangatira in 1840 and that it apologise for its Treaty breaches. It also recommended that the Crown return all Crown-owned land in the district to Te Raki Māori; that it provide economic compensation; and that it enter into discussions with Te Raki Māori to determine appropriate constitutional processes and institutions at the national, iwi, and hapū levels to recognise, respect, and give effect to their Treaty rights.
 

Tino Rangatiratanga me te Kāwanatanga: The Report on Stage 2 of the Te Paparahi o Te Raki Inquiry, Part I is the outcome of 415 Treaty claims submitted by Māori of the Te Paparahi o te Raki (Northland) inquiry district. This district covers Hokianga, Whangaroa, Bay of Islands, Mangakāhia, Whāngārei, Mahurangi, and the Gulf Islands.

The claims within the Te Paparahi o Te Raki district were brought to the Waitangi Tribunal on behalf of individuals, whānau, hapū, iwi, and affiliated groups. They alleged that the Crown breached the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi in a range of ways, causing significant prejudice to them and their tūpuna. The Tribunal received the claims between 1985 and 2008 and heard them during 26 hearings from March 2013 to October 2017.

Tino Rangatiratanga me te Kāwanatanga focuses on claims and evidence relating to the nineteenth century. It follows the Tribunal’s stage 1 report, He Whakaputanga me te Tiriti/The Declaration and the Treaty: Report on Stage 1 of the Te Paparahi o Te Raki Inquiry, which concluded that the rangatira who signed te Tiriti in the Bay of Islands and Hokianga in February 1840 did not cede their sovereignty. Rather, they agreed to a relationship in which they and the Governor were to be equal, while having different roles and different spheres of influence.

The key issues addressed in this stage 2 report concern land, Māori–Crown political engagement, Crown military action in the claimants’ traditional rohe, and the Crown’s policies toward Māori land in the latter half of the nineteenth century. The Tribunal’s overall finding was that the Crown overstepped the bounds of its kāwanatanga (authority to govern) in Te Raki between 1840 and 1900, leading to the erosion of Te Raki Māori rangatiratanga.

The report begins by introducing the inquiry and the district, establishing the Treaty context for Te Raki claims relating to the nineteenth century, and describing Te Raki communities prior to 1840, before addressing the inquiry issues.

First, the report considers the steps the Crown took to declare sovereignty over the North Island and then all of New Zealand in two proclamations issued by the Queen’s representative Captain William Hobson in May 1840. The Tribunal found that these proclamations breached the principles of the Treaty, as Te Raki Māori who signed te Tiriti had not in fact ceded sovereignty. When negotiating te Tiriti, the Crown did not clarify to Te Raki Māori that it intended to establish a government and legal system under its sole control, nor did it explain that it would assert sovereignty over the whole country, the Tribunal concluded.

Secondly, the report reviews the Crown’s actions before and during the Northern War, in which Ngāpuhi clashed with British forces. The Tribunal found the Crown’s actions in serious breach of the Treaty. The Crown rejected opportunities to talk with Ngāpuhi leaders about their concerns that the Treaty was being ignored, and instead it took military action against them. Among other failures, it initiated attacks on pā and kāinga, made the surrender of land a condition of peace, and did not adequately consider the welfare of non-combatants. These Crown actions had severe short- and long-term effects on Ngāpuhi, the Tribunal considered.

Thirdly, the report considers the Crown’s investigations into pre-1840 land transactions (‘old land claims’). The Tribunal concluded that, prior to 1840, Māori had transacted land with settlers within the context of their own laws and that rangatira expected the Crown to seek their agreement on the nature, shape, and processes for any investigation into these transactions. However, after 1840, the Crown imposed its own processes for determining land rights in these investigations, supplanting the tikanga of Te Raki Māori without their consent. The Crown’s imposition of English legal concepts, its granting of absolute freehold title to settlers, and its own subsequent taking of the surplus were effectively a raupatu (confiscation) of Te Raki Māori tino rangatiranga over thousands of acres of their land, the Tribunal found.

The report then considers the New Zealand Constitution Act 1852, which transferred authority from imperial to colonial Government. The Tribunal determined that this Act breached Treaty principles. It did not allow for Māori representation in Parliament until four seats were added in 1867. The Crown had promised to protect Māori interests and independence under the Treaty, yet it failed to build these protections into the constitution. Instead, it progressively handed governmental authority to the settler population, fundamentally undermining the Treaty relationship. Governors Thomas Gore Browne and George Grey sought different solutions to provide for Māori involvement in the governance of their communities, such as the Kohimarama Rūnanga (a national rūnanga of Māori leaders) in 1860, and Grey’s district rūnanga (intended to provide limited powers of local self-government) in 1861. However, despite Te Raki Māori support for these initiatives, both were short-lived and gave way to directly assimilationist institutions such as the Native Land Court.

The report goes on to review the Crown’s land purchasing policies and practices between 1840 and 1865 and the introduction of the Native Land Court and native land laws in the 1860s. The Tribunal found various Treaty breaches relating to these Crown actions. The Crown’s imposition from 1862 of a new land tenure system that individualised title to Māori customary land, making it more vulnerable to partition, fragmentation, and alienation, was particularly devastating for Te Raki Māori, the Tribunal concluded. This system undermined community control over whenua, eroding the cultural, political, and economic organisation of hapū. It also brought large-scale land loss, with Māori retaining only a third of the inquiry district by 1900. The Tribunal found that the Crown’s nineteenth-century land policies inflicted deep and enduring damage on Te Raki Māori, and it noted the district remains one of the most economically deprived parts of New Zealand today.

Finally, the report considers the efforts of Te Raki Māori to assert their tino rangatiratanga in the late nineteenth century. It sets out the steps that Te Raki Māori and other northern hapū and iwi took to establish regular regional parliaments at Waitangi and Ōrākei. During the 1890s, the Tribunal noted, these groups helped lead attempts by the Kotahitanga movement to establish a national Māori parliament recognised by the Crown. However, the Crown rejected or ignored their proposals for Māori self-government, and it was unwilling to recognise any significant transfer of authority from colonial institutions. The Tribunal concluded that this was a historically unique opportunity to make provision in New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements for Māori tino rangatiratanga at a national level. It found that the Crown’s failure to recognise and respect Te Raki rangatiratanga over this period breached the Treaty and its principles.

The report ends with a number of recommendations to support the Crown and Te Raki Māori in future Treaty settlement negotiations. The Tribunal recommended that the Crown acknowledge the Treaty agreement it entered into with Te Raki rangatira in 1840 and that it apologise for its Treaty breaches. It also recommended that the Crown return all Crown-owned land in the district to Te Raki Māori; that it provide economic compensation; and that it enter into discussions with Te Raki Māori to determine appropriate constitutional processes and institutions at the national, iwi, and hapū levels to recognise, respect, and give effect to their Treaty rights.
 

The Waitangi Tribunal’s Te Mana Whatu Ahuru: Report on Te Rohe Pōtae Claims is the outcome of 277 Treaty of Waitangi claims submitted by Māori of the Te Rohe Pōtae inquiry district. This district extends from Whāingaroa Harbour to northern Taranaki, and inland to the Waikato River and Taumarunui.

The claims in the report were brought to the Waitangi Tribunal on behalf of a diverse range of groups and individuals. They alleged that the Crown breached the principles of the Treaty through a range of actions that resulted in significant prejudice to claimants and their tūpuna. Of the claims that would eventually come to be part of the Te Rohe Pōtae District Inquiry, the first was submitted to the Tribunal in March 1987 by Margaret Makariti Poinga on behalf of herself and members of Ngāti Hikairo. The last was the claim of Angeline Greensill concerning Māui’s dolphin and their threat of extinction, submitted to the Tribunal in September 2014.

The Te Rohe Pōtae Tribunal panel comprised Judge David Ambler (presiding officer), Sir Hirini Mead, Professor Pou Temara, John Baird, and Dr Aroha Harris. After the death of Judge Ambler in 2017, Deputy Chief Judge Caren Fox was appointed to the role of presiding officer.

The Tribunal heard 23 weeks of evidence, including six Ngā Kōrero Tuku Iho hui to hear traditions and oral evidence. Hearings began in March 2010 and ended in February 2015.

Volume 4 of Te Mana Whatu Ahuru addresses how the rapid alienation of Māori land reflected and fuelled an erosion of the ability of Te Rohe Pōtae Māori to exercise mana whakahaere, or self-government, over the way the district and its inhabitants were managed. An assurance that district leaders would be able to continue exercising mana whakahaere was contained within article 2 of the Treaty of Waitangi guarantee of tino rangatiratanga (self-government, autonomy), as well as the (1883–85) agreements between Te Rohe Pōtae Māori and the Crown, known as Te Ōhākī Tapu, that promised to give effect to the Treaty in the district.

Contrary to these promises, in the years after the Te Ōhākī Tapu agreements, the Crown’s actions, omissions, legislation, and policies designed to develop the area for Pākehā settlement largely stripped Te Rohe Pōtae Māori of their tribal authority. Areas affected included the governance and management of Māori communities, the impact of local government and public works legislation on remaining Māori land, and the management of the natural environment, including waterways.

The Tribunal found that the Crown failed to sustain Te Rohe Pōtae self-government in a Treaty-compliant way. While Te Rohe Pōtae Māori participated in a succession of representative structures and institutions expected to provide them with at least a form of mana whakahaere, these spheres of influence were limited, and many did not prove enduring.

The imposition of Pākehā local government structures further complicated Te Rohe Pōtae Māori’s struggle to retain mana whakahaere, and the Tribunal found that the Crown failed to ensure local government structures would adequately consider Te Rohe Pōtae rights to exercise their mana whakahaere and tino rangatiratanga.

Compulsory taking of Māori land for public works development purposes, which increased markedly after the Te Ōhākī Tapu agreements, was another means through which large tracks of Māori land were alienated, and Te Rohe Pōtae tribal authority diminished as a result. The Tribunal found that without meaningful consultation and without meeting tests of last resort, the Crown undertook the largest takings for public works in New Zealand history in the inquiry district during the twentieth century.

Crown and local authorities’ regulation of the natural environment, including waterways and water bodies, further diminished Te Rohe Pōtae Māori tribal authority over many taonga and sites of significance. Additionally, the Tribunal found Crown regulation and mismanagement of the natural environment likely resulted in significant damage to many of these important sites.

Based on its findings of Treaty breach in these areas, the Tribunal made recommendations to restore or better enable Te Rohe Pōtae Māori mana whakahaere, including by amending the legislative and policy frameworks associated with each area under review, and accounting for identified breaches in any Treaty settlement processes with claimants.