Search Inquiry Documents

On Saturday 3 September 2010, the Tribunal released its report Tauranga Moana, 1886–2006: Report on the Post-Raupatu Claims.

In stage 2 of its inquiry into Tauranga Moana claims, the Tribunal examined issues relating to the decades since the confiscation (the latter having been the subject of stage 1). Over 50 claims had grievances needing investigation in this second stage, including three claims from groups that had not appeared in stage 1, namely Ngati Mahana, Ngati Motai, and Ngati Hinerangi.

The Tribunal, consisting of Judge Stephanie Milroy (presiding), John Clarke, Areta Koopu, and Professor Keith Sorrenson, found that Tauranga iwi and hapu continued to lose significant amounts of land after 1886, notably through Crown purchasing, public works, pressures caused by actual and potential rates debt, and the processes of urbanisation and subdivision. The tangata whenua could ill afford to lose any land at all, and the scale of the loss has compounded the prejudice they suffered from the raupatu and its aftermath. Particularly disappointing was the lack of adequate protection or assistance for those groups that were left landless or nearly so. However, no group was totally unaffected by land loss.

Even where Maori managed to retain land, they faced considerable difficulty trying to develop it. To a large extent, the cause of this was the land tenure and administration system imposed by the Crown on Maori owners. While the Tauranga panel acknowledges that the Crown made efforts at times to assist Maori to overcome the disadvantages created, it is in no doubt that overall the Crown failed to provide the level of protection and support promised under the Treaty.

The Tribunal also found that rates have often been a particular problem for Maori land held in multiple ownership, and it recommended the introduction of new valuation legislation that is more consistent with the Treaty. The Tribunal looked at the planning legislation that had underpinned urbanisation and economic development over the years, concluding that such legislation had often failed to reflect Maori needs, perspectives, and aspirations, and it discussed the lack of political representation for Maori at the local level. It is only in recent years that legislation to encourage Maori participation in local government has been put in place, with Environment Bay of Plenty leading the way in creating Maori seats and electorates. The Tribunal commented that there needed to be much more vigorous pursuit of such policies if development sensitive to Maori views and aspirations were to flourish.

The Tribunal noted that, along with their loss of land, Tauranga Maori suffered reduced access to, and use of, traditional resources from the rivers, sea, and forests of Tauranga Moana. The intensification of economic activity and the accelerating pace of urban development also often led to degradation and pollution of those environments. Alongside that, development had endangered the cultural heritage of Tauranga Maori: despite some protections, many sites of cultural, spiritual, and historical importance had been modified or even destroyed. Where their environment and cultural heritage were concerned, the tangata whenua had to fight hard to maintain even a faint shadow of the tino rangatiratanga and kaitiakitanga they exercised at the time the Treaty was signed. The Tribunal recommended various ways by which the Crown could assist in restoring a measure of rangatiratanga to the iwi and hapu of the district.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found that the cumulative and interlinked effects of different Government processes and legislative provisions have created considerable prejudice to Tauranga Moana Maori, all too often marginalising them socially, culturally, and economically in the area that has for centuries been their home. Further, the economic marginalisation had resulted in lost opportunity costs that impacted on their ability to recover. Despite some improvements over recent years, Maori socio-economic statistics still lagged some way behind those of non-Maori. Looking forward, the Tribunal urged greater collaboration and information flow between various arms of Government in order to redress the prejudice suffered and to assist Maori in their future development. It recommended that the settlement of claims of Tauranga iwi and hapu be addressed as a matter of high priority, and it urged that substantial redress be made for post-1886 breaches, separately and in addition to redress for the raupatu. The Tribunal particularly stressed the importance of returning land wherever possible.

In September 1991, Eriapa Uruamo lodged a claim with the Tribunal complaining about the sale of 4 Domett Avenue, Auckland, by the Auckland Area Health Board. Maori use of the property dated back to about 1950, when a Māori youth hostel was constructed there for Māori trade trainees, and at the time of the claim the land was occupied by the Te Taou Reweti Charitable Trust, which had connections to the local Ngāti Whātua iwi.

After hearing the evidence, the Tribunal of Chief Judge Eddie Durie (presiding), Professor Keith Sorrenson, and Georgina Te Heuheu recommended that the Crown intervene in the Auckland Hospital sales process and, if it was not too late, in the disposal of 4 Domett Avenue in particular. It also recommended that the Crown consult with an appropriate national Māori organisation on a general policy for the disposal of those health board properties in which Māori had a particular interest and that the Minister of Health provide funding for this and for the research of prospective Māori claims to hospital lands.

On 2 July 2011, the Waitangi Tribunal released its report on the Wai 262 claim relating to New Zealand’s law and policy affecting Māori culture and identity.

Ko Aotearoa Tēnei (‘This is Aotearoa’ or ‘This is New Zealand’) is the Tribunal’s first whole-of-government report, addressing the work of around 20 government departments and agencies and Crown entities.

It is also the first Tribunal report to consider what the Treaty relationship might become after historical grievances are settled, and how that relationship might be shaped by changes in New Zealand’s demographic makeup over the coming decades.

The report concerns one of the most complex and far-reaching claims ever to come before the Waitangi Tribunal. The Wai 262 claim is commonly known as the indigenous flora and fauna and cultural and intellectual property claim. As the report’s preface puts it:

the Wai 262 claim is really a claim about mātauranga Māori – that is, the unique Māori way of viewing the world, encompassing both traditional knowledge and culture. The claimants, in other words, are seeking to preserve their culture and identity, and the relationships that culture and identity derive from.

The report is divided into two levels, each of which is designed to be read independently: a shorter summary layer subtitled Te Taumata Tuatahi, which aims to be accessible to a general readership, and a fuller, two-volume layer subtitled Te Taumata Tuarua. Both layers have an introduction, eight thematic chapters and a conclusion.

On 2 July 2011, the Waitangi Tribunal released its report on the Wai 262 claim relating to New Zealand’s law and policy affecting Māori culture and identity.

Ko Aotearoa Tēnei (‘This is Aotearoa’ or ‘This is New Zealand’) is the Tribunal’s first whole-of-government report, addressing the work of around 20 government departments and agencies and Crown entities.

It is also the first Tribunal report to consider what the Treaty relationship might become after historical grievances are settled, and how that relationship might be shaped by changes in New Zealand’s demographic makeup over the coming decades.

The report concerns one of the most complex and far-reaching claims ever to come before the Waitangi Tribunal. The Wai 262 claim is commonly known as the indigenous flora and fauna and cultural and intellectual property claim. As the report’s preface puts it:

the Wai 262 claim is really a claim about mātauranga Māori – that is, the unique Māori way of viewing the world, encompassing both traditional knowledge and culture. The claimants, in other words, are seeking to preserve their culture and identity, and the relationships that culture and identity derive from.

The report is divided into two levels, each of which is designed to be read independently: a shorter summary layer subtitled Te Taumata Tuatahi, which aims to be accessible to a general readership, and a fuller, two-volume layer subtitled Te Taumata Tuarua. Both layers have an introduction, eight thematic chapters and a conclusion.

The first volume of Te Taumata Tuarua introduces the report and contains its first four chapters. Chapter 1 considers the Māori interest in the works created by weavers, carvers, writers, musicians, artists, and others in the context of New Zealand’s intellectual property law, particularly copyright and trade marks.

Chapter 2 examines the genetic and biological resources of the flora and fauna with which Māori have developed intimate and long-standing relationships, and which are now of intense interest to scientists and researchers involved in bioprospecting, genetic modification, and intellectual property law, particularly patents and plant variety rights.

The next two chapters consider Māori interests in the environment more broadly, first in terms of the wide-ranging aspects of the environment controlled by the Resource Management Act (chapter 3), and then with regard to the conservation estate managed by the Department of Conservation (chapter 4).

The second volume of Te Taumata Tuarua contains the final four chapters of the report. Chapter 5 focuses on the Crown’s protection of te reo Māori (the Māori language) and its dialects, and considers in depth the current health of the language. A prepublication version of this chapter was released in October 2010.

Chapter 6 considers those agencies where the Crown owns, funds, or oversees mātauranga Māori (Māori knowledge and ways of knowing) and is thus effectively in the seat of kaitiaki (cultural guardian). These agencies operate in the areas of protected objects, museums, arts funding, broadcasting, archives, libraries, education, and science.

Chapter 7 then examines the Crown’s support for rongoā Māori or traditional Māori healing. It also traverses the principal historical issue covered in the report, the passage and impact of the Tohunga Suppression Act 1907.

Chapter 8 addresses the Crown’s policies on including Māori in the development of New Zealand’s position concerning international instruments such as the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Each chapter ends with a brief summary of the Tribunal’s recommendations for reform, and a concluding chapter brings together its overall conclusions and recommendations.

An appendix provides a brief procedural history of the inquiry, outlining the origins and development of the claim, the claimants, the scope of the claim issues and the two rounds of hearings.

On 2 July 2011, the Waitangi Tribunal released its report on the Wai 262 claim relating to New Zealand’s law and policy affecting Māori culture and identity.

Ko Aotearoa Tēnei (‘This is Aotearoa’ or ‘This is New Zealand’) is the Tribunal’s first whole-of-government report, addressing the work of around 20 government departments and agencies and Crown entities.

It is also the first Tribunal report to consider what the Treaty relationship might become after historical grievances are settled, and how that relationship might be shaped by changes in New Zealand’s demographic makeup over the coming decades.

The report concerns one of the most complex and far-reaching claims ever to come before the Waitangi Tribunal. The Wai 262 claim is commonly known as the indigenous flora and fauna and cultural and intellectual property claim. As the report’s preface puts it:

the Wai 262 claim is really a claim about mātauranga Māori – that is, the unique Māori way of viewing the world, encompassing both traditional knowledge and culture. The claimants, in other words, are seeking to preserve their culture and identity, and the relationships that culture and identity derive from.

The report is divided into two levels, each of which is designed to be read independently: a shorter summary layer subtitled Te Taumata Tuatahi, which aims to be accessible to a general readership, and a fuller, two-volume layer subtitled Te Taumata Tuarua. Both layers have an introduction, eight thematic chapters and a conclusion.

The first volume of Te Taumata Tuarua introduces the report and contains its first four chapters. Chapter 1 considers the Māori interest in the works created by weavers, carvers, writers, musicians, artists, and others in the context of New Zealand’s intellectual property law, particularly copyright and trade marks.

Chapter 2 examines the genetic and biological resources of the flora and fauna with which Māori have developed intimate and long-standing relationships, and which are now of intense interest to scientists and researchers involved in bioprospecting, genetic modification, and intellectual property law, particularly patents and plant variety rights.

The next two chapters consider Māori interests in the environment more broadly, first in terms of the wide-ranging aspects of the environment controlled by the Resource Management Act (chapter 3), and then with regard to the conservation estate managed by the Department of Conservation (chapter 4).

The second volume of Te Taumata Tuarua contains the final four chapters of the report. Chapter 5 focuses on the Crown’s protection of te reo Māori (the Māori language) and its dialects, and considers in depth the current health of the language. A prepublication version of this chapter was released in October 2010.

Chapter 6 considers those agencies where the Crown owns, funds, or oversees mātauranga Māori (Māori knowledge and ways of knowing) and is thus effectively in the seat of kaitiaki (cultural guardian). These agencies operate in the areas of protected objects, museums, arts funding, broadcasting, archives, libraries, education, and science.

Chapter 7 then examines the Crown’s support for rongoā Māori or traditional Māori healing. It also traverses the principal historical issue covered in the report, the passage and impact of the Tohunga Suppression Act 1907.

Chapter 8 addresses the Crown’s policies on including Māori in the development of New Zealand’s position concerning international instruments such as the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Each chapter ends with a brief summary of the Tribunal’s recommendations for reform, and a concluding chapter brings together its overall conclusions and recommendations.

An appendix provides a brief procedural history of the inquiry, outlining the origins and development of the claim, the claimants, the scope of the claim issues and the two rounds of hearings.

In June 1991, Archie Taiaroa, on behalf of himself and Māori affiliated to the National Māori Congress, lodged a claim with the Waitangi Tribunal concerning the disposal of surplus New Zealand Railways lands. The Tribunal constituted to hear the claim comprised Judge Eddie Durie (presiding), Professor Gordon Orr, and Georgina Te Heuheu, and it reported on four such cases, Auckland, South Auckland, Wellington and Waikenae.

In 1992, the Crown-Congress Joint Working Party proposed a scheme for the disposal of 3605 square metres of surplus Railways lands at Waikanae. In its Report on Railway Land at Waikanae of 21 December 1992, the Tribunal said that, having heard the party, it was satisfied that the only Māori with an interest in the land were the Ruakohatu Urupa Trustees and that the Crown would not be acting contrary to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi in treating with them.

In June 1991, Archie Taiaroa, on behalf of himself and Māori affiliated to the National Māori Congress, lodged a claim with the Waitangi Tribunal concerning the disposal of surplus New Zealand Railways lands. The Tribunal constituted to hear the claim comprised Judge Eddie Durie (presiding), Professor Gordon Orr, and Georgina Te Heuheu, and it reported on four such cases, Auckland, South Auckland, Wellington and Waikenae.

In its Report on South Auckland Railway Lands of 18 May 1992, the Tribunal found that the Crown would not be acting contrary to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi if it disposed of railway assets in Soouth Auckland upon the terms agreed with certain named people and organisations.

In June 1991, Archie Taiaroa, on behalf of himself and Māori affiliated to the National Māori Congress, lodged a claim with the Waitangi Tribunal concerning the disposal of surplus New Zealand Railways lands. The Tribunal constituted to hear the claim comprised Judge Eddie Durie (presiding), Professor Gordon Orr, and Georgina Te Heuheu, and it reported on four such cases, Auckland, South Auckland, Wellington and Waikenae.

In 1992, the Crown-Congress Joint Working Party proposed a scheme for the disposal of surplus railways lands on Tamaki isthmus, Auckland. In its Report on Auckland Railway Lands of 21 May 1992, the Tribunal was satisfied that Ngāti Whātua, Ngāti Paoa, Ngātitai, and Waiohua had interests in the area and it found that the sale of the lands on the basis of the agreements made would not be contrary to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.