Search Inquiry Documents

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 from the south coast to Pukerua Bay to Maymorn in the Upper Hutt Valley. In its Report on Wellington Railway Lands of 21 December 1992, the Tribunal found that the Crown would not be acting contrary to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi to effect an arragement for the sale of the railway lands to certain named persons and organisations.

Claim Wai 273 was filed in 1992 by Paul White and related to the Tapuwae 1B and 4 Incorporation. The land under the incorporation was managed under the Maori Affairs Act 1953 and was returned to Maori shareholders, with outstanding debts, in 1982. The claim alleged negligence during the period of Crown management which resulted in the outstanding debts.

In 1993, the claimants filed a notice of discontinuance, and Crown counsel advised that the details of a confidential agreement between the parties constituted a full and final settlement of the claim. The Tribunal therefore closed its inquiry into the matter without making any findings or recommendations. Its report on the matter, signed by Chief Judge Eddie Durie, was issued on 8 March 1993.

The Interim Report on Sylvia Park and Auckland Crown Asset Disposals concerns three claims lodged by the Ngāti Whātua o Orakei Maori Trust Board, Ngāti Paoa and Ngai Tai Umupuia o Tamaki, and Ngāti Whātua relating to 21 hectares at Mount Wellington. The land was known as Sylvia Park and formed part of the 1300-acre Hamlin purchase of 1838. The iwi claimed that the land should have been reserved for them but that the Crown instead kept it for itself, and they were dismayed to learn of the Government’s intention to sell the land through the Department of Survey and Land Information.

In 1992, the Tribunal of Chief Judge Eddie Durie (presiding), Professor Gordon Orr, and Joanne Morris was advised that the Sylvia Park land had been sold and that no protective arrangements had been made. The Tribunal therefore recommended that the proceeds of the sale be held in a separate trust account pending a determination of the claims and that the Government negotiate with the Ngāti Whātua of Orakei Māori Trust Board in association with representatives for Ngāti Paoa–Ngai Tai for a separate settlement and arrangement for the disposal of Crown or State enterprise assets in Auckland.

The Ngawha Geothermal Resource Report 1993 was the first Tribunal report concerned with a geothermal resource. The claim, by the trustees of the Parahirahi C1 Maori reservation and the hapu of Ngawha, was filed in response to a joint-venture application by the Bay of Islands Electric Power Board and the Taitokerau Maori Trust Board to use the Ngawha geothermal resource for electricity generation. The claimants feared such development may harm their taonga, the hot springs and pools at Ngawha.

The Springs, indeed the entire underground geothermal resource is a taonga to us. You have heard of its miraculous healing powers and I can confirm in my long experience as Kaitiaki of that taonga that everything that these Kaumatua have told you is the truth. I believe that its healing powers, God-given, are sourced deep within in our Mother Earth. Any interference in that spiritual source is a desecration of our taonga.

Kereama Rankin

Our ancestors [knew] that the heart of Ngawha is underground. They are channels of hot water flowing underground. They knew and believed that it was one taonga, underground and up on the surface of the ground. It has been said the hot pools represent the eye of the taonga. But its heart is in, is within the depths of Mother Earth. If we abuse the very heart the pain will affect the heart, the eyes. It is all one treasure.

Ngatihaua Witehiri

The two main components of the grievance were the acquisition by the Crown of the land and hot springs and the provisions of the Geothermal Act 1953 and the Resource Management Act 1991, which were claimed to be inconsistent with the rights of the claimants under the Treaty of Waitangi.

The Tribunal constituted to hear the claim comprised Professor Gordon Orr (presiding), Sir Hugh Kawharu, Joanne Morris, and William Taylor. The first hearing of the claim took place at Kotahitanga Marae, Kaikohe, in October 1992. The second hearing was held in December, and in January 1993 the Tribunal heard final submissions.

The Tribunal found that the claimants retained ownership and rangatiratanga over the Ngawha hot springs on the one acre vested in the trustees of the Parahirahi C1 Māori reservation. They were also entitled to the return of four acres vested in the Crown as a recreation reserve, since they were an integral part of the springs and were acquired in breach of article 2 of the Treaty of Waitangi.

After a full inquiry, there was no doubt in the Tribunal’s mind that the Ngawha springs had always been a highly valued taonga of the Ngapuhi people, and the Treaty guaranteed to Māori the Crown’s protection of their taonga. The Tribunal recommended that the Crown amend the Resource Management Act 1991 to provide that ‘all persons exercising functions and powers under it, in relation to management the use, development and protection of natural and physical resources, shall act in a manner that is consistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi’.

In late 1992, the Waitangi Tribunal inquired into several claims concerning a September 1992 settlement between the Crown and Maori on fisheries, commonly known as the Sealords deal. Hearings took place at the end of September and the beginning of October, and the Tribunal, which consisted of Chief Judge Eddie Durie (presiding), Bishop Bennett, Hugh Kawharu, and Joanne Morris, released its report in November.

The fisheries settlement had been hailed as historic. While it was not the only national settlement, it was the first to extinguish claims (the forestry and State Enterprise settlements being steps along the way) and the first to affect all iwi. It was significant too in that, previously, 'first in, first served' applied, while this settlement proposed the allocation of benefits according to a regular plan.

None the less, there were objections. The complaint in this claim was that the Deed of Settlement, or the Crown policy that it proposed, was contrary to the Treaty and prejudicial to the claimants in that it would diminish their rangatiratanga and fishing rights and impose new arrangements that had not been adequately agreed on.

The Court of Appeal, referring to apparently conflicting provisions in the deed, said:

This weakness in the Deed and other aspects of it which are criticised by the appellants could be in part accounted for by input into it from different hands. Certainly it is a most unusual document and, perhaps, even designedly, obscure in some major respects.

The Tribunal considered that the Crown had done well in seeking to provide for Māori interests in commercial fisheries, but that the spirit had become lost in the small print, leading to complaints from Māori:

Most especially it needs to be appreciated that any settlement of this nature has two essential goals, not just to pay off for the past, but also to buy into the future. The Treaty, it must be understood, is primarily concerned with the latter. It is not the extinguishment of rights that is essential but the affirmation of them. Somehow the Deed does not capture this, apart from the preamble, and Māori anxieties were understandable.

The Tribunal concluded that the Crown's Treaty obligations to hapu required any allocation of benefits to be based on principles that were fair. As the Deed stood, these obligations were likely to be compromised; both inconsistently with Treaty principles and in a manner prejudicial to some Māori. The Tribunal therefore recommended that:

that the allocation scheme should not be based on Treaty principles alone, but according to what is tika, or fair, in all the circumstances. This may include Treaty principles but need not be exclusive to them;[and]

that objections should not be referred to this Tribunal, as our jurisdiction is constrained, but should be sent to some court or especially established body that is able to consider all relevant matters.

Despite its controversial aspects, the commercial sea-fisheries agreement was subsequently embodied in the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act 1992. Māori now own some 50 percent of New Zealand's commercial sea fisheries and, in return, have agreed to relinquish future Treaty claims in respect of commercial sea fisheries.

The Te Maunga Railways Land Report of August 1994 concerned the use of the Public Works Act 1928. The claim, lodged by Michelle Henare and others, was granted urgency because the land involved at Te Maunga, in the Tauranga district, was the subject of a Māori Land Court order. That order revested the land in its former Māori owners, but with the condition that a payment of $70,000, plus GST, be made before it was returned. The claimants sought relief from this condition. Ms Henare put it this way:

I only want to express our concern about these things that have happened to us over a long time. My dad would have liked to have seen us give it our best shot. We felt it unjust that land be taken, pass from us, by Railways. We felt it has always been ours. We should not have to pay the $70,000. It is not the monetary value. It is the cultural tie that we do not want to lose. … My personal view is that the land will always be ours. They may use it as and when. It does not cease to be ours because the Crown has used it.

The land had been taken in 1955 for railways purposes under the Public Works Act 1928 and used for housing employees of the New Zealand Railways Corporation. The Tribunal found no evidence that ‘this transaction, a compulsory taking under the Public Works Act 1928, [could] be construed as a voluntary agreement to sell, on a willing seller basis’:

There was no attempt to explore alternative forms of tenure, such as a lease or licence to occupy, which would have preserved the parent title, and therefore their mana, and the rangatiratanga of the tangata whenua over their lands guaranteed to them in article 2 of the Treaty of Waitangi.

In 1985, the land was considered to be surplus to Railways Corporation requirements. At that time, the Public Works Act 1981 set out the procedures and conditions for disposing of Maori land that had been taken by the Crown for a public work but was no longer required that purpose. The land at Te Maunga was a small block, but the issues raised by the claim involved important principles of the Treaty of Waitangi: the Crown right to make laws and take land in the public interest (kawanatanga), against the guarantees of protection of Māori ownership of lands (rangatiratanga):

There was no concept of compulsory taking in customary Maori tenure systems. … the Crown guaranteed (ka wakarita ka wakaae) to Maori te tino rangatiratanga, the full authority over their lands until such time as they chose to dispose of them at an agreed price. There is in the Treaty, therefore, no assumption of a fictitious willing seller for the purpose of compulsory taking of Maori land by the Crown.

In reaching its conclusions, the Tribunal discussed the values assigned to land:

In the Maori world there are also values attributed to land and identity, ancestry and occupation, over many generations, which can never be translated into monetary terms. This is why Maori land, compulsorily acquired, is not seen by Maori as paid for, or adequately compensated, by a mere sum of money.

The Tribunal referred to the words of Justice Richardson in a 1987 court case, New Zealand Maori Council and Latimer v Attorney-General and Others, that the 'possession of land and the rights to land are not measured simply in terms of economic utility and immediately realisable commercial values'. It also quoted the words of the New Zealand Māori Council:

[Māori land] provides us with a sense of identity, belonging and continuity. It is proof of our continued existence not only as a people, but as the tangata whenua of this country. It is proof of our tribal and kin group ties. Maori land represents turangawaewae. It is proof of our link with the ancestors of our past, and with the generations yet to come. It is an assurance that we shall forever exist as a people, for as long as the land shall last.

The Tribunal of Judge Hingston, Pamela Ringwood, Evelyn Stokes and Makarini Temara concluded that this claim was well founded and recommended that the Crown take all necessary steps to ensure that the Te Maunga Railways land was revested in the former Māori owners without the payment of the $70,000 purchase price required by the Minister of Railways. They also made some more general recommendations for changes to public works legislation and the offer-back procedures to reflect more positively the Treaty principle of the Crown's fiduciary obligation toward Māori. In support, the Tribunal quoted a 1988 statement by the Minister of Lands, the Honourable Peter Tapsell, to the Māori Land Court:

Where the people were required to be divested of land, it is my view that if it is not essential for a Public Work it ought to be returned to them. It is, moreover, my view that the land ought to be returned to them unencumbered. That is it seems to me an injustice to say that we took your land eighty years ago and gave you fifty pounds, and now you can have your land back, provided you pay half a million dollars. That seems to be grossly unjust.

In 1992, Hariata Gordon lodged a claim on behalf of herself and Ngati Paoa which concerned the appointment of members to the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission under the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act 1992. The claim alleged that Ngati Paoa, and others that joined the claim, were prejudicially affected by the consultation proposals in the 1992 Act and by a proposed policy of the Minister of Māori Affairs not to consult collectively at a hui, and that the Act and the policy were to that extent inconsistent with the Treaty of Waitangi.

The Tribunal, comprised of Chief Judge Eddie Durie (presiding), Bishop Manuhuia Bennett, and Mary Boyd, recommended that a hui be called, and considered it within the competence of the Ministry of Māori Development for it to call one. They recommended that the hui be directed first to the criteria for appointment and then to the selection of possible candidates.

In 1993, Sandra Lee and Tuhuru Tainui lodged a claim for themselves and the rangatira Tuhuru and his descendants which endeavoured to establish that a grievance would be caused by the passing of the proposed Ngai Tahu Bill.

The Maori Development Corporation Report of 1993 concerned the proposed sale by the Government of its shares in the Maori Development Corporation. This was the first claim of its kind to come before the Tribunal: it was not about the recovery of land or the desecration of something Māori, and there was no taonga that was obviously the subject of the grievance.

At the request of the claimants – Hohepa Waiti for and on behalf of himself and Te Runanganui o Te Ika Whenua Incorporated, Whatarangi Winiata, and others – the Tribunal granted urgency to the hearing of the claim. This was because the process by which the Crown proposed to divest itself of its shares had already been set in motion at the time the claim was made. The Tribunal comprised Judge Heta Hingston (presiding), John Ingram, Joanne Morris, and Hepora Young, and hearings were held in June and September of 1993. Professor Whatarangi Winiata outlined the claim:

There are two major issues in this claim. The first is the fundamental nature of the Crown's investment from the Treaty perspective, and the effect in Treaty terms of the proposed sale, and Crown withdrawal from the investment … The second is the process by which the sale is being effected. Maori economic interests are closely involved and the process should be one which is consistent with these interests. There should be consultation with the tribes, which there has not been … We seek to stop the sale of the Crown's shareholding, and, we urge the restructuring of Maori Development Corporation to perform the serious purpose of development banking for which it was established.

The Tribunal considered that the Maori Development Corporation was created as a Treaty settlement mechanism for the benefit of all Māori and that the Crown's involvement as the principal shareholder was a vital means of achieving Treaty-based objectives:

In light of our view that the MDC is a Treaty settlement mechanism, we also consider that the proposed sale of the Crown's shares would be inconsistent with the Treaty principle … whereby the Crown must act fairly and impartially towards all Māori. This conclusion rests upon our view that the likely outcome of a sale at this time would advantage a few iwi and disadvantage the majority, thereby creating a new prejudice.

In its report, the Tribunal recommended that the Crown immediately transfer five million shares to the Poutama Trust and that, before it sold the rest of its remaining eight million shares, it devise a sale process, in consultation with Māori, to ensure the continued control of the Māori Development Corporation by pan-Māori interests.

This report is in response to claims relating to the development, finalisation, and implementation in the 1960s of the Tarawera Forest joint-venture scheme, a tripartite forestry scheme involving private enterprise (originally Tasman Pulp and Paper Company Limited), the Crown, and several thousand Maori. In essence, the claims assert that the Crown secured the involvement of the Maori participants in the scheme by means which were in breach of Treaty principles and which caused them prejudice. The relevant Treaty principles are those of active protection and partnership. The claimed prejudice is, first, the unnecessary and non-consensual loss from Maori ownership of more than 38,000 acres of land, including the sacred maunga Putauaki and, secondly, the loss of financial benefits that, it is said, should have been obtained from the joint venture by the Maori participants but were not.

The primary group of claimants (the Wai 411 claimants) represent the former owners of the 38,000 acres of Maori land and the current shareholders and debenture stock holders of Maori Investments Limited (MIL). MIL is a holding company created in 1968 for the specific purpose of administering the 10.8 percent stake in Tarawera Forests Limited (TFL) that was obtained by the former owners of the Maori land in return for contributing their land to the venture. Supporting the Wai 411 claim but focusing specifically on the loss of ownership of Putauaki were the Ngati Awa (Wai 46) claimants. The other claim reported on here (Wai 872) was made by an individual Wai 411 claimant during the course of the Tribunal's hearing.

A key feature of the Tarawera Forest joint venture was that ownership of the land contributed by the three venturers passed to TFL in return for a stake in that company. The claimants' land loss grievance rests on their view that the owners of the Maori land would have much preferred to lease it than lose title to it, and that a lease could have been achieved in place of the joint venture if only the Crown had acted consistently with its duty actively to protect Maori interests. Instead, the claimants allege, the Crown put its own interests ahead of those of the Maori landowners and secured their involvement in the joint venture by a variety of unfair tactics, the effect of which was that the Maori owners did not sufficiently understand or consent to the venture's terms. The sense of grievance that surrounds the loss from Maori to private ownership of such a large area of land, including the taonga Putuaki, is exacerbated by the fact that the Tarawera Forest joint-venture has proved to be a 'one-off' scheme. All other forestry projects utilising Maori land have involved leases, and some have enabled the Maori lessors to own the forest on their land at the end of the lease's term.

The claimant's second grievance is that the joint venture has not given to the Maori participants the returns promised to those who knew of it, let alone the returns that they claim would have been obtained if the venture had been negotiated fairly. At the heart of this grievance, too, is the view that the Crown put its own interests first and, by various unfair tactics, ensured that the Maori landowners became party to a venture on terms that were not to their greatest advantage.

The nature of the claims has required the Tribunal to undertake a detailed examination of the events surrounding the development and implementation of the Tarawera Forest joint venture. The first issue is the fairness, in terms of the Crown's obligations to protect Maori interests, of the process by which the joint venture was conceived and became a reality. The second issue is the attitude of the Crown throughout that process. We have found that the process followed in establishing the joint venture was inconsistent with what the Treaty principle requires of the Crown. We have also found, however, that the Crown was not motivated by bad faith in that process. Further, we are satisfied that the two claimant groups have been prejudiced by the loss of ownership of the former Maori land and the sacred mountain, and that the financial returns to MIL from the joint venture do not offset that loss. We are not satisfied, however, that the claimants have lost financial benefits due to them from their participation in the joint venture. Finally, we consider that the prejudice resulting from the loss of land ownership requires redress from the Crown, and we have made recommendations on that matter at the conclusion of this report.