Search Inquiry Documents

On 22 November 2008, the Waitangi Tribunal released its final report on the Treaty claims of iwi and hapu of Te Tau Ihu (northern South Island). The eight recognised iwi are Ngati Apa, Ngati Koata, Ngati Kuia, Ngati Rarua, Ngati Tama, Ngati Toa Rangatira, Te Atiawa, and Rangitane. The report had earlier been released as an incomplete pre-publication edition in order to help with the claimants in their settlement negotiations with the Crown.

The Tribunal inquiry panel comprised Maori land Court Deputy Chief Judge Wilson Isaac (presiding officer), Professor Keith Sorrenson, Pam Ringwood, and John Clarke. The late Rangitihi Tahuparae, a respected kaumatua of Whanganui, passed away on 2 October 2008 between the completion of the report and its publication.

In its report, the Tribunal found that many acts and omissions of the Crown breached the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. In particular, the Tribunal concluded that ownership of all but a tiny fraction of land in the Te Tau Ihu district was lost to Maori without first gaining their free, informed, and meaningful consent to the alienations. Nor did the Crown ensure that fair prices were paid and sufficient lands retained by the iwi for their own requirements.

The Tribunal finds that, contrary to Treaty principles, the Crown granted lands at Nelson and Golden Bay to the New Zealand Company without first ensuring that all customary owners were fairly dealt with. It then proceeded with its own large-scale Wairau and Waipounamu purchases, making predetermined decisions as to ownership which ignored the rights of many Te Tau Ihu Maori or left them with little meaningful choice over the alienation of their lands.

As a result, by as early as 1860 Te Tau Ihu Maori had lost most of their original estate. Thereafter, the Crown failed to actively protect their interests in those lands which remained to them. It also failed to protect their just rights and interests in valued natural resources. Despite petitions from Maori and repeated reports from its own officials, the Crown failed to protect or provide for Maori interests and rights in their customary fisheries and other resources. The result of these failures was grinding poverty, social dislocation, and loss of culture.

The Tribunal found that the totality of Treaty breaches were serious and caused significant social, economic, cultural, and spiritual prejudice to all iwi of Te Tau Ihu. These breaches, the Tribunal considered, required large and culturally appropriate redress.

In an attempt to assist Te Tau Ihu Treaty settlements, the Tribunal made several recommendations for remedies. Having regard in particular to the relatively even spread in terms of social and economic prejudice across all eight Te Tau Ihu iwi, the Tribunal recommended that the total quantum of financial and commercial redress be divided equally between them.

The Tribunal also recommended that site-specific cultural redress should be discussed collectively with all groups involved in Te Tau Ihu Treaty negotiations and that the unique claim of Ngati Apa, whose customary interests within Te Tau Ihu were never extinguished by any kind of deed of cession, needed special recognition. The Tribunal found the Crown’s repeated failure to properly recognise and deal with the Kurahaupo iwi as the legitimate tangata whenua (alongside the northern tribes) of Te Tau Ihu to be a serious breach. It recommended that the Crown take steps to fully recognise and restore the mana of the Kurahaupo iwi.

The Tribunal recommended that the settlement of historical grievances relating to Wakatu Incorporation was most appropriately a matter to be concluded between the Crown and Te Tau Ihu iwi and that matters affecting the shareholders of Wakatu Incorporation since its establishment in 1977 should be resolved between the incorporation and the Crown. It recommended that the Crown enter into parallel negotiations with the Ngati Rarua Atiawa Iwi Trust, with a view to bringing the Whakarewa (Motueka) leases into line with the 1997 Maori reserved lands settlement.

The Tribunal’s report highlighted a number of shortcomings with respect to the current ‘offer-back’ regime under the Public Works Act 1981. It recommended amendments to the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 and the Public Works Act to address these issues.

The Tribunal also highlighted problems with resource and fishery management regimes and recommended changes and improvements to ensure that these regimes were more consistent with the Treaty. The Crown admitted that the Resource Management Act 1991 was not being implemented in a manner that provided fairly for Maori interests.

Finally, the Tribunal made recommendations with respect to the customary interests of Te Tau Ihu iwi within the statutorily defined Ngai Tahu takiwa. Te Tau Ihu iwi lost the ability to recover their interests in lands within the takiwa, which have been vested in Ngai Tahu as a result of earlier Crown settlement. The Tribunal strongly recommended that the Crown take urgent action to ensure that these breaches did not continue. It also recommended that the Crown negotiate with those Te Tau Ihu iwi identified in the report as having customary interests within the statutorily defined Ngai Tahu takiwa to agree on equitable compensation.

The Ngāti Maniapoto/Ngāti Tama Cross-Claims Settlement Report (2001) is a report on two Ngāti Maniapoto claims (Wai 788 and Wai 800) about the proposed settlement of Ngāti Tama’s historical Treaty claims relating to Taranaki. An urgent hearing to consider these claims was held in Wellington from 26 to 28 February 2001 by a Tribunal consisting of Judge Carrie Wainwright (presiding), the Honourable Dr Michael Bassett, and Professor Wharehuia Milroy.

Wai 788 was lodged in July 1999 by Atiria Takiari and others, while Wai 800 was submitted by Harold Maniapoto and Roy Haar in November 1999. The two sets of claimants worked together, Wai 788 representing Ngāti Maniapoto hapu of the Mokau region and Wai 800 representing wider Ngāti Maniapoto interests. These claims were prompted by settlement negotiations between Ngāti Tama and the Crown, which in turn were a response to the Tribunal’s Taranaki Report. As a result of these negotiations, a heads of agreement for a proposed settlement of Ngāti Tama’s claims was signed in September 1999. This agreement proposed, among other things, to transfer various properties to Ngāti Tama and to provide other forms of recognition of Ngāti Tama’s interests in the north Taranaki–Mokau area.

The Ngāti Maniapoto claimants stated that they had interests in part of the area covered by the Ngāti Tama settlement, and that they would be prejudiced by the provision of redress to Ngāti Tama within that area before Ngāti Maniapoto’s claims had been heard by the Tribunal, or before Ngāti Maniapoto had entered into settlement negotiations with the Crown for its Treaty claims.

In evidence to the Tribunal, the Crown submitted details of revisions to the Ngāti Tama settlement which had been agreed to by Ngāti Tama and the Crown. The Tribunal considered that, by revising the settlement and by giving a number of undertakings intended to allay Ngāti Maniapoto’s concerns about the possible effects of this settlement on their interests, the Crown had conscientiously endeavoured to meet its obligations as a Treaty partner to both Ngāti Tama and Ngāti Maniapoto. The Tribunal noted:

There are serious precedent implications arising from the Wai 788 and Wai 800 claims. If the Tribunal were to take the view that the Crown ought not to deliver redress to any claimant where there are overlapping or cross-claims, the repercussions for the Crown’s settlement policy would be very serious. It would thwart the desire on the part of both the Crown and Māori claimants to achieve closure in respect of their historical Treaty grievances. Indefinite delay to the conclusion of Treaty settlements all around the country is an outcome that this Tribunal seeks to avoid.

The Tribunal made clear that Crown has a responsibility to ensure that negative inferences about Ngāti Maniapoto’s interests are not drawn from the Crown’s recognition of Ngāti Tama’s interests in the settlement. In the Tribunal’s view, the Crown had taken, or had promised to take, appropriate steps to meet this responsibility. The Tribunal was also convinced that, if the revised settlement with Ngāti Tama were to go ahead, the Crown would retain the capacity to provide adequate and appropriate redress to Ngāti Maniapoto when its settlement came to be negotiated.

For these reasons, the Tribunal found that the Crown would not breach Treaty principles by going ahead with the Ngāti Tama settlement on the basis of the revised settlement package. It also made a recommendation in relation to one particular site, Te Kawau Pā, which is on the coast south of Mokau. This site was originally to have been vested in Ngāti Tama as part of its settlement, but the Crown subsequently recognised that, because both Ngāti Tama and Ngāti Maniapoto had strong interests in the site, it would be inappropriate to vest title exclusively in either group. The Tribunal recommended that the status of Te Kawau Pā should remain unchanged for the time being, but that the Crown should take an active role in trying to find a way of recognising the interests of both parties:

We further recommend that the Crown facilitate hui involving Ngāti Maniapoto and Ngāti Tama to discuss the future management and ownership of Te Kawau Pā. If no agreement about the future ownership and management of this site results from such hui, we recommend that the matter be reconsidered when Ngāti Maniapoto negotiate their settlement with the Crown, at which time another attempt should be made to find a way of recognising the interests of both Ngāti Tama and Ngāti Maniapoto in the site, and of including both groups in its ownership and management.

Claim Wai 789, the Mokai Primary School claim, was brought by Mohi Osborne and Te Aroha Adams and concerned the closure of a sole-charge primary school at Mokai in October 1999.

The claimants alleged that, by closing Mokai Primary School, the Crown failed to protect the tino rangatiratanga and taonga of the hapu of Mokai, and so did not meet its Treaty responsibilities. The school, it was said, was a significant vehicle for the retention and transmission of 'local identity and autonomy - Mokaitanga'. Koti Te Hiko said:

I believe that if we are to retain the ahi ka of Mokaitanga then we need to educate our tamariki here in Mokai. Te ahi ka is within us when we are born but it must be nurtured within Mokai for it to survive. As the future kaumatua and kuia of Mokai the tamariki must walk alongside their parents and grandparents to learn the ways and responsibilities of the people. With the marae being so close there is a natural flow and interaction between what we sometimes call the triangle, this being the marae, the Mokai village and the school.

Mere Wall told the Tribunal that:

This isn't really just about education. This is about who we are. Our identity. This is about our whole being, our wairua, our tinana, our tikanga, our kawa … And it is time for us to stand up, as we are doing, and reclaim that … It comes from an inbuiltness to strive and to fight for who we are. You take away a man's identity, he has no face. You move these tamariki out of Mokai, they have no face. They are faceless out in the world. You keep them here, you give them solid roots and solid foundations, ae they go out to the world and they can face them with a face. So that when people ask them, ‘Ko wai koe?’ ‘Ae ko au,’ and [they] say who they are with pride and with dignity.

The Tribunal constituted to hear the claim was comprised of Joanne Morris (presiding), John Baird, Areta Koopu, and Rangitihi Tahuparae. Urgency was granted, and hearings were held in November 1999 and January 2000. The Tribunal presented its report to the Minister of Māori Affairs and the claimants on 31 March 2000:

Our analysis of the evidence and submissions presented in the claim leads to the conclusion that, despite the Crown's commitment to the goal of improving the education of Māori children, its closure of Mokai Primary School was not undertaken consistently with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. In brief, the "good governance" that is required of the Crown, and that is demonstrated by its attention to protecting taonga and enhancing tino rangatiratanga by reasonable means, was not evident in the chain of events that culminated in the school's closure.

The Tribunal recommended that the school be reopened with more intensive support from the Crown than was available in the past. It also recommended that the Crown clarify its policies and processes for intervening (by closure or other means) in the governance of schools in difficulty:

Although the claim concerned one small primary school that was serving a rural Māori community, we consider that the Treaty arguments and evidence submitted to us, and our analysis of them, raise larger questions about the responsiveness to Māori interests of contemporary Crown education policies.

Two days of hearing for the Paraninihi ki Waitotara Incorporation (PKW) claim regarding changes to the dairy industry were held on 12 and 13 November 2001. The Tribunal's report was released before Christmas 2001.

The claim had four separate aspects to it. The Tribunal did not uphold the the first three points of claim. The Tribunal did not agree that the creation of Fonterra would necessarily cause the relative value of PKW's unimproved land to decrease; did not agree that the rental income from PKW's land necessarily would be of less value; and did not agree that the relative cost of exercising the right of first refusal to buy out perpetual leases would necessarily increase.

However, the Tribunal did uphold the fourth point of claim – that the cost of entering the dairy industry has increased – and recommended that the Government should guarantee a loan to enable PKW to purchase shares to supply Fonterra, so that PKW would be able to enter the dairy industry in an equitable manner.

The Tribunal found this was particularly necessary because the Crown had ignored repeated recommendations from various inquiries and commissions since the confiscation of Taranaki land to provide remedies for the problems created by confiscation, and by the subsequent establishment of perpetual leases of returned lands. The Tribunal considered that the failure to provide such remedies created an even more compelling need for the Crown to do so urgently: 'we regard the wilful and repeated turning of the Crown's face from its Treaty obligations and breaches as a further breach in itself'.

The Tribunal considered that the Crown should have at the very least acted immediately on the recommendations of the Tribunal's 1991 Ngai Tahu Report regarding perpetual leasing and the Māori Reserved Land Act 1955:

having ignored the [1975] Sheehan report, the Crown should, at the very least, have given the matter urgent attention and provided a fulsome remedy when the implications of the finding of the ‘Ngai Tahu Report’ were apparent, and had the strong words in the 1987 judgment of the Court of Appeal been taken to heart.

The Report on the Management of the Petroleum Resource is the Waitangi Tribunal’s second report on petroleum claims and results from an urgent inquiry held in 2010 to investigate the management of the resource in modern times. It forms the sequel to the Tribunal’s first report published in 2003, which considered the ownership of the petroleum resource. The Tribunal, consisting of Judge Layne Harvey (presiding), Joanne Morris, Basil Morrison, and Professor Pou Temara, heard the claims at Aotearoa Pa, Okaiawa, from 26 to 29 April 2010, and the closing submissions at the Wellington District Court on 6 May. The report was released on 20 April 2011.

The claims considered in the report were brought against the Crown by Ngāruahine of Taranaki and by Ngāti Kahungunu of Hawke’s Bay and the Wairarapa. Taranaki has already been extensively affected by petroleum prospecting, exploration, and production, and exploratory drilling has also been carried out in Hawke’s Bay and the Wairarapa. The current regime for managing petroleum is governed by the Crown Minerals Act and the Resource Management Act, both of 1991. In essence, the claimants saw three main problems with the regime. They said that the substance of the legislation was biased against Māori and favoured the interests of others. They claimed further that the processes established to apply the legislation failed to ensure effective participation by Māori. Indeed, the processes in question might even deter or deny Māori involvement, meaning that Māori struggle to safeguard their interests. Lastly, said the claimants, a further obstacle was created by the lack of reliable and sufficient assistance for Māori communities to participate in resource management processes. As a result, the claimants said, the regime breached the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.

In the course of the inquiry, the Crown accepted that Māori capacity to participate in resource management processes was an issue but said that ‘incremental steps’ were being taken to improve the situation. Other than that, the Crown denied the claims.

Having examined the evidence presented, the Tribunal said that it was ‘disturbed by the extent to which the current regime depends for its protection of Māori interests on the ad hoc involvement of Māori individuals and groups who are ill-resourced to bear the burdens involved’. The Tribunal was particularly concerned about the effects of the regime on sites of historical and cultural significance in Taranaki, given the already devastating effects of land confiscation there in the nineteenth century. The Tribunal noted that many of the sites were not only significant to Māori but had a bearing on the history and identity of New Zealand as a whole.

For the petroleum management regime to meet the standards of the Treaty, the Tribunal found that four criteria needed to be met. Tangata whenua must be able to:

• count on being involved at key points in decision-making processes that affect their interests;
• make a well-informed contribution to decisions;
• afford to have that level of involvement; and
• be confident that their contribution will be understood and valued.

The Tribunal found that, overall, this was not happening. In part, this was because the rūnanga or iwi authorities envisaged under the Runanga Iwi Act 1990, and intended to act as a kind of Māori counterpart to local government bodies, were disestablished when that Act was repealed less than a year after it was passed. Another problem was the complexity of the petroleum management regime, and the number of local government processes in which Māori were required to engage simultaneously if they wished to try to protect their interests. To help address the situation, the Tribunal made 11 recommendations covering matters such as:

• The establishment of a ministerial advisory committee to provide advice directly to the Minister of Energy on Māori perspectives and concerns.
• The re-establishment of district and regional representative bodies for tangata whenua, for the purpose, among other things, of considering petroleum management issues. Such bodies should be adequately resourced by central government and empowered with some decision-making responsibilities by local government.
• The use of a small percentage of the Crown’s petroleum royalties to establish a fund to which iwi and hapū could apply for assistance to help them participate more effectively in petroleum management processes.
• Greater use of joint hearings by local authorities on matters relating to petroleum management.
• Reform of the Crown Minerals Act, including strengthening the Treaty provisions, amending the compulsory arbitration requirements, and enhancing the provisions for site protection.

In closing, the Tribunal noted that its findings on the petroleum management regime had implications for the resource management regime more generally, and it hoped that its recommendations might also be of assistance to the Crown in that broader context.

The Petroleum Report is the outcome of an urgent hearing held in Wellington over four days from 16 to 19 October 2000. In the report the Tribunal, consisting of Chief Judge Joe Williams (presiding), John Baird, John Clarke, and Joanne Morris, addresses claims by Nga Hapu o Nga Ruahine of Taranaki and Ngati Kahungunu of Hawke’s Bay and Wairarapa in relation to their interests in the petroleum resource.

The report was written under urgency owing to the Government’s intention to sell the Crown’s interests in the Kupe licence. Because of that situation, the Tribunal reported in two stages. Part 2 of the report dealt with the regulatory framework and management regime since 1937.

At the hearing, it was common ground between the claimants and the Crown that, before 1937, land ownership carried with it legal rights to the petroleum in the land. However, the claimants argued that in the nineteenth century, and up to 1937, the Crown was implicated in many breaches of the Treaty whereby they lost most of their land and the petroleum that went with it. Then, in the Petroleum Act 1937, the Crown nationalised the petroleum resource, without paying compensation to landowners, and without making provision for the ongoing payment of royalties to them. This, the claimants said, was a further breach of the Treaty.

The question before the Tribunal was whether, if Maori no longer have any subsisting legal ownership in the petroleum resource, an interest of any other kind remains. The inquiry led the Tribunal to conclude that the expropriation of the pre-existing Maori rights to petroleum arose from a context riddled with breaches of the Treaty. The situation in Taranaki, for example, where most of the land was confiscated, is well known. The Tribunal reached the view that, where legal rights to an important and valuable resource are lost or extinguished as a direct result of a Treaty breach, an interest of another kind is generated. The Tribunal called this a ‘Treaty interest’.

When a Treaty interest arises, there will be a right to a remedy, and a corresponding obligation on the Crown to negotiate redress for the wrongful loss of the legal right. Importantly, the Treaty interest creates entitlement to a remedy for that loss additional to any other entitlement to redress.

In relation to the loss of the petroleum resource under circumstances that breach the Treaty, the Tribunal considered that separate redress was due to Māori. By ‘separate’, the Tribunal meant additional to that made for historical land loss grievances, and relating to the loss of rights in the petroleum resource.

The Tribunal considered that the claimants in these claims had a subsisting Treaty interest in the petroleum resource and that they were accordingly entitled to redress beyond that to which their historical land loss grievances entitled them.

Finally, the Tribunal examined the reasoning underlying the Crown’s view that petroleum assets ought to be excluded from settlements. The Tribunal concluded that this exclusion was in breach of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and that the Crown’s remaining petroleum assets ought to be on the table in any settlement negotiations with affected claimants. The Tribunal’s conclusion in this regard had general application but applied with particular force in the case of Taranaki.

The Tribunal concluded by recommending that the Crown negotiate with affected Maori groups for the settlement of petroleum grievances and that it withhold the Kupe petroleum mining licence from sale until either a rational policy had been developed to safeguard Maori interests or the petroleum claims had been settled.

Heoi ano enei whakaaro o matou mo te kaupapa i whakatakotoria ki mua i to matou aroaro. E tautoko ana i tera rerenga korero kua whakawharikitia ki roto ki nga mahi a te Karauna mo nga kereme. Ko matou kei muri, ko te Karauna me te iwi Maori kei mua - ‘Ka tika a muri, ka tika a mua’.

The Waitangi Tribunal’s report on Treaty claims around the Turanga (Gisborne) area was formally handed to claimants at Whakato Marae on 30 October 2004.

The Tribunal has ruled that the Crown repeatedly disregarded its own laws in its treatment of Maori from the Turanga area in the nineteenth century. In particular, it found that the execution of unarmed prisoners at Ngatapa Pa in 1868 was one of the worst abuses of law and human rights in New Zealand’s colonial history.

Significantly, it ruled that Maori also breached the Treaty during this period and that there was no justification for the murder of Pakeha settlers and other Maori in the Turanga area by Te Kooti and his followers.

This was the first report to be released under the Tribunal’s ‘new approach’, which heralded a faster approach to the hearing of, and reporting on, historical claims. This approach produced a report in four and a half years – from the first judicial conference held with claimant groups, their lawyers, and the Crown to discuss how the new approach would work practically in Gisborne, through to hearings, and then the writing, editing, and release of the report . This is roughly half the time it has taken in comparable districts using the standard inquiry process. The Tribunal says the two-volume report is the result of an unprecedented degree of cooperation both among the various claimant groups, and between claimants and the Crown.

In Turanga Tangata Turanga Whenua, the Tribunal found that the Crown breached the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi by: attacking a defensive pa at Waerenga a Hika in November 1865; deporting and detaining 123 prisoners on Wharekauri (the Chatham Islands) without charge or trial; executing between 86 and 128 unarmed prisoners at Ngatapa Pa in 1868, again without charge or trial; extracting the cession of 1.195 million acres under duress; and by confiscating, without legal authority, the property rights of hundreds of Turanga Maori ‘alleged’ to be rebels.

Significantly, the Tribunal also found that Te Kooti and his followers breached their own responsibilities as citizens and Treaty partners, when they murdered between 50 and 70 Maori and Pakeha at the settlements of Matawhero, Oweta and Patutahi. Even though the Whakarau (as Te Kooti’s followers were called) were greatly provoked by Crown action, the Tribunal found that ‘the Treaty of Waitangi continued to speak for reasonableness, moderation and an ethical response’.

The report details significant moments from Gisborne’s past. Turanga, as it was then called, was a fully autonomous district until 1865. That autonomy was broken when the Crown laid siege to the defensive pa at Waerenga a Hika, killing 71 defenders in the process. The Tribunal found that the Crown may only turn its guns on its own citizens if they are in rebellion. This, it said, was not the case in Turanga.

Following the surrender of the pa, the Crown imprisoned 113 men and transported them to the Wharekauri (the Chatham Islands). The Tribunal found that since the prisoners never faced charges, and were never convicted of any offence, their imprisonment was unlawful and in breach of the Treaty.

Te Kooti and nearly 300 men, women, and children escaped from Wharekauri. The Whakarau landed at Whareongaonga, south of the Bay of Plenty. Colonial forces tried to re-arrest them, and failed. Te Kooti sought safe passage from Tuhoe and sanctuary from King Tawhiao. When denied both, he attacked the Turanga settlements of Patutahi, Matawhero, and Oweta. Between 50 and 70 Pakeha and Maori were killed by the attackers. The Whakarau retreated to Ngatapa Pa in the interior, where they were besieged by colonial forces. The pa surrendered four days later. Between 86 and 128 unarmed prisoners were executed.

The Tribunal found that there was no justification for the murder of between 50 and 70 settlers and Maori in Turanga:

The Whakarau were entitled to defend themselves against Crown actions which were illegal and in breach of Treaty principle, but they breached their own responsibilities as citizens and Treaty partners in attacking and killing or forcibly detaining unarmed civilian targets.

The Crown was entitled to pursue and punish the perpetrators to the full extent of the law. But the Treaty was breached when Crown forces executed without trial, this large group of unarmed prisoners. According to the Tribunal, the scale of systematic killing at Ngatapa represents one of the worst abuses of law and human rights in New Zealand’s colonial history. Certainly it was the worst ever perpetrated by the Crown. The Crown had to respect and uphold the rule of law. It had to comply with the standards it expected of its own citizens.

Following the attack on Matawhero, 279 Turanga Maori ceded 1.195 million acres to the Crown. The Tribunal found that the cession was made under duress – the Crown had threatened to remove its protection unless the entire district was ceded. This threat was in breach of the Treaty. Nor could the deed extinguish the rights of the majority of Turanga Maori who did not sign the cession at all, the Tribunal found. In 1869, the Poverty Bay Commission was established to punish ‘rebels’ by confiscating their lands, and to return land to ‘loyal’ Maori. The Tribunal found that the commission did not have the power to confiscate land. Nor did the commission comply with applicable nineteenth century standards for fair legal process.

The Native Land Court followed the Poverty Bay commission. The court commenced title investigations in Turanga in 1875, under the new Native Lands Act. The Tribunal found that although Turanga Maori saw the benefit of titles that had been ratified by the Crown; they wanted to make their own title decisions. They opposed the land court because it took that right from them. Alongside this, the Native Lands Act removed from Maori communities, the legal capacity to manage their lands collectively. This meant that the only way Maori could benefit from the new colonial economy was by the sale of individual shares, but the land sale process under the new Act was complex, expensive, and risky for both buyers and sellers. To compound matters the titles that Maori received remained in a form of customary tenure that was far less valuable in the new settler driven market. As a result, prices were significantly discounted. Taken together, these factors meant that Maori sold more land as individuals than they would have sold as a result of a community decision making process, and at far lower overall prices. The promised economic benefits which colonisation would bring to Maori were thus never realised in Turanga.

The Tribunal noted that the peoples of Gisborne have a rich and sometimes dramatic shared history. However, it expressed frustration at the lack of local education programmes to ensure local communities are aware of that history. That, it said, remains a primary obstacle to the process of reconciliation.

The Mangatū Remedies Report, released in June 2014, is the outcome of applications for remedies by four claimant groups from Tūranganui-a-Kiwa (Gisborne). These groups – the Mangatū Incorporation (Wai 1489), Te Aitanga a Māhaki and Affiliates (Wai 274 and Wai 283), Ngā Ariki Kaipūtahi (Wai 499, Wai 507, and Wai 874), and Te Whānau a Kai (Wai 892) – asked the Tribunal to use its potentially binding powers to require the Crown to return to them all or part of the Mangatū Crown forest licensed lands within the Tūranga inquiry district.

The Tribunal held its inquiry into the historical claims of Tūranga Māori between 2001 and 2002. In 2004, the Tribunal released Turanga Tangata Turanga Whenua: The Report on the Turanganui a Kiwa Claims. The Tribunal found that all of the iwi and hapū groups who had appeared before it had been prejudicially affected by wide-ranging Treaty breaches deriving from Crown conduct and policies in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The Tribunal noted especially the substantial loss of life and land suffered by Tūranga Māori.

The Mangatū Incorporation filed an application for an urgent remedies inquiry on 31 July 2008, seeking return of 8,522 acres of land in the Mangatū 1 block purchased by the Crown in 1961 for afforestation purposes. The Incorporation sought an urgent inquiry because an Agreement in Principle was expected to be signed by the Crown and Tūranga Māori in August 2008, the result of settlement negotiations that had commenced shortly after the release of the Tribunal’s Tūranga report. That agreement proposed the return of the Mangatū Crown forest licensed lands to the wider hapū grouping as commercial redress, including the land purchased from the Incorporation in 1961. The Incorporation, however, considered that the 1961 land should be returned to the Incorporation owners, and asked the Tribunal to use its binding powers to do so.

The Tribunal initially declined the Incorporation’s application for an urgent hearing. However, the Incorporation sought judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision and, on 19 May 2011, the Supreme Court directed the Tribunal to hear the Mangatū Incorporation remedies application urgently. Following this, the three other applicants – who represent the claims of hapū and iwi involved in the original Tūranga district inquiry – also lodged applications for binding recommendations.

The panel members for the Mangatū remedies hearing were Judge Stephanie Milroy (presiding officer), Tim Castle, Wharehuia Milroy, and Dr Ann Parsonson. Two weeks of hearings were held in Gisborne in June and October 2012. Closing submissions of the parties were heard in November 2012 in Wellington.

The Tribunal found that all four applicants had well-founded claims that were deserving of redress. However, the Tribunal did not consider that binding recommendations were appropriate in the circumstances and so declined to make the recommendations sought. In particular, it could not be certain that binding recommendations would provide redress proportionate to the prejudice suffered by the claimants. As a result, the Tribunal was unable to make recommendations that would be fair and equitable between the four groups. The Tribunal was concerned that redress which seemed to favour one group over others would risk creating fresh grievances, and might undermine the chances of achieving a durable Treaty settlement of the claims.

The Tribunal strongly urged all the applicants to reunite and return to settlement negotiations with the Crown. The Tribunal reiterated its preference that redress for well-founded claims should be negotiated with the Crown. In the report, the Tribunal said: ‘Any compromises that are made, and all settlements require compromises, should be made by the hapū and iwi involved – they are the ones with the mana and rangatiratanga to make such agreements, not the Tribunal.’ It emphasised that negotiations allow all parties much more flexibility than binding recommendations to develop a satisfactory settlement package.

The Waitangi Tribunal’s report on Treaty claims around the Turanga (Gisborne) area was formally handed to claimants at Whakato Marae on 30 October 2004.

The Tribunal has ruled that the Crown repeatedly disregarded its own laws in its treatment of Maori from the Turanga area in the nineteenth century. In particular, it found that the execution of unarmed prisoners at Ngatapa Pa in 1868 was one of the worst abuses of law and human rights in New Zealand’s colonial history.

Significantly, it ruled that Maori also breached the Treaty during this period and that there was no justification for the murder of Pakeha settlers and other Maori in the Turanga area by Te Kooti and his followers.

This was the first report to be released under the Tribunal’s ‘new approach’, which heralded a faster approach to the hearing of, and reporting on, historical claims. This approach produced a report in four and a half years – from the first judicial conference held with claimant groups, their lawyers, and the Crown to discuss how the new approach would work practically in Gisborne, through to hearings, and then the writing, editing, and release of the report . This is roughly half the time it has taken in comparable districts using the standard inquiry process. The Tribunal says the two-volume report is the result of an unprecedented degree of cooperation both among the various claimant groups, and between claimants and the Crown.

In Turanga Tangata Turanga Whenua, the Tribunal found that the Crown breached the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi by: attacking a defensive pa at Waerenga a Hika in November 1865; deporting and detaining 123 prisoners on Wharekauri (the Chatham Islands) without charge or trial; executing between 86 and 128 unarmed prisoners at Ngatapa Pa in 1868, again without charge or trial; extracting the cession of 1.195 million acres under duress; and by confiscating, without legal authority, the property rights of hundreds of Turanga Maori ‘alleged’ to be rebels.

Significantly, the Tribunal also found that Te Kooti and his followers breached their own responsibilities as citizens and Treaty partners, when they murdered between 50 and 70 Maori and Pakeha at the settlements of Matawhero, Oweta and Patutahi. Even though the Whakarau (as Te Kooti’s followers were called) were greatly provoked by Crown action, the Tribunal found that ‘the Treaty of Waitangi continued to speak for reasonableness, moderation and an ethical response’.

The report details significant moments from Gisborne’s past. Turanga, as it was then called, was a fully autonomous district until 1865. That autonomy was broken when the Crown laid siege to the defensive pa at Waerenga a Hika, killing 71 defenders in the process. The Tribunal found that the Crown may only turn its guns on its own citizens if they are in rebellion. This, it said, was not the case in Turanga.

Following the surrender of the pa, the Crown imprisoned 113 men and transported them to the Wharekauri (the Chatham Islands). The Tribunal found that since the prisoners never faced charges, and were never convicted of any offence, their imprisonment was unlawful and in breach of the Treaty.

Te Kooti and nearly 300 men, women, and children escaped from Wharekauri. The Whakarau landed at Whareongaonga, south of the Bay of Plenty. Colonial forces tried to re-arrest them, and failed. Te Kooti sought safe passage from Tuhoe and sanctuary from King Tawhiao. When denied both, he attacked the Turanga settlements of Patutahi, Matawhero, and Oweta. Between 50 and 70 Pakeha and Maori were killed by the attackers. The Whakarau retreated to Ngatapa Pa in the interior, where they were besieged by colonial forces. The pa surrendered four days later. Between 86 and 128 unarmed prisoners were executed.

The Tribunal found that there was no justification for the murder of between 50 and 70 settlers and Maori in Turanga:

The Whakarau were entitled to defend themselves against Crown actions which were illegal and in breach of Treaty principle, but they breached their own responsibilities as citizens and Treaty partners in attacking and killing or forcibly detaining unarmed civilian targets.

The Crown was entitled to pursue and punish the perpetrators to the full extent of the law. But the Treaty was breached when Crown forces executed without trial, this large group of unarmed prisoners. According to the Tribunal, the scale of systematic killing at Ngatapa represents one of the worst abuses of law and human rights in New Zealand’s colonial history. Certainly it was the worst ever perpetrated by the Crown. The Crown had to respect and uphold the rule of law. It had to comply with the standards it expected of its own citizens.

Following the attack on Matawhero, 279 Turanga Maori ceded 1.195 million acres to the Crown. The Tribunal found that the cession was made under duress – the Crown had threatened to remove its protection unless the entire district was ceded. This threat was in breach of the Treaty. Nor could the deed extinguish the rights of the majority of Turanga Maori who did not sign the cession at all, the Tribunal found. In 1869, the Poverty Bay Commission was established to punish ‘rebels’ by confiscating their lands, and to return land to ‘loyal’ Maori. The Tribunal found that the commission did not have the power to confiscate land. Nor did the commission comply with applicable nineteenth century standards for fair legal process.

The Native Land Court followed the Poverty Bay commission. The court commenced title investigations in Turanga in 1875, under the new Native Lands Act. The Tribunal found that although Turanga Maori saw the benefit of titles that had been ratified by the Crown; they wanted to make their own title decisions. They opposed the land court because it took that right from them. Alongside this, the Native Lands Act removed from Maori communities, the legal capacity to manage their lands collectively. This meant that the only way Maori could benefit from the new colonial economy was by the sale of individual shares, but the land sale process under the new Act was complex, expensive, and risky for both buyers and sellers. To compound matters the titles that Maori received remained in a form of customary tenure that was far less valuable in the new settler driven market. As a result, prices were significantly discounted. Taken together, these factors meant that Maori sold more land as individuals than they would have sold as a result of a community decision making process, and at far lower overall prices. The promised economic benefits which colonisation would bring to Maori were thus never realised in Turanga.

The Tribunal noted that the peoples of Gisborne have a rich and sometimes dramatic shared history. However, it expressed frustration at the lack of local education programmes to ensure local communities are aware of that history. That, it said, remains a primary obstacle to the process of reconciliation.

In the Mangatū Remedies Report 2021, released today (1 October 2021), the Waitangi Tribunal  makes an interim recommendation under section 8HB of the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 that the Crown return to Māori ownership the Mangatū Crown forest land in the Tūranganui a Kiwa district, together with monetary compensation.

During 2018 and 2019, the Tribunal heard remedies applications seeking such a recommendation from several claimant groups: Te Aitanga a Māhaki and the Mangatū Incorporation, Ngā Uri o Tamanui, and Te Whānau a Kai. Another group, Te Rangiwhakataetaea–Wi Haronga–Ngāti Matepu, participated in the remedies inquiry as an interested party. The Tribunal had previously inquired into the claims of Te Aitanga a Māhaki, Ngā Uri o Tamanui, and Te Whānau a Kai in the Tūranga district inquiry, reporting on them in the 2004 Turanga Tangata Turanga Whenua: The Report on the Turanganui a Kiwa Claims. In that report, the Tribunal made findings on Crown Treaty breaches in the district, ranging from the attack on the defensive pā at Waerenga a Hika in 1865 to the Crown’s acquisition in 1961 of parts of the land now comprising the Mangatū Crown forest licensed land.

In this subsequent remedies inquiry, the Tribunal was required to decide whether to recommend the return of land as a remedy for the claimants’ well-founded claims that relate to the Mangatū Crown forest licensed land. If the Tribunal determined that the land should be returned to Māori, it would then have to decide how much and to which claimant groups. Under section 36 of the Crown Forest Assets Act 1989, and schedule 1 to that Act, the return of Crown forest licensed land to Māori ownership is also accompanied by monetary compensation. The value of the available compensation is tied to the value of the of the cutting rights for the Mangatū Crown forest, which were sold by the Crown in 1990. The Tribunal has a discretion to award between 5 and 100 per cent of the available compensation.

In the Mangatū Remedies Report 2021, the Tribunal determines that Te Aitanga a Māhaki and the Mangatū Incorporation, Ngā Uri o Tamanui, and Te Whānau a Kai have well-founded claims that relate to the Mangatū Crown forest land. The relevant claims address Crown Treaty breaches that led to the loss of the claimants’ tino rangatiratanga and mana whenua in that land. The claims concern both the specific circumstances in which the land was lost from Māori ownership, as well as the Crown’s wider actions that were specifically designed to destroy Māori autonomy and control over their lands in Tūranga.

As a remedy for the prejudice suffered by the claimants, the Tribunal determines that the whole of the Mangatū Crown forest licensed land should be returned to Te Aitanga a Māhaki, Ngā Uri o Tamanui, and Te Whānau a Kai. The claimants should receive the full financial compensation available under schedule 1 to the Crown Forests Assets Act. The Mangatū land should be returned to a collective trust to be established by the claimants, called the Mangatū Forest Collective Trust. The trust’s beneficiaries would be the legally recognised governance entities that Te Aitanga a Māhaki Trust, Ngā Uri o Tamanui, and Te Whānau a Kai established following the 2018 remedies hearings, and which were ratified by the claimant communities.

Following the release of this report, claimant parties and the Crown have a period of 90 days to begin to negotiate the settlement of their claims. If an alternative agreement is reached through these negotiations, the Tribunal will cancel or modify its interim recommendation as necessary. Otherwise, after the 90 days has passed, the Tribunal’s interim recommendation becomes binding on the Crown.

The Mangatū Remedies Inquiry panel comprises Judge Stephanie Milroy (presiding), Tim Castle, Dr Ann Parsonson, and Ahonuku Tom Roa. Hearings were held in Gisborne and Wellington between August 2018 and July 2019.