Search Inquiry Documents

In its Pakakohi and Tangahoe Settlement Claims Report, released in November 2000, the Waitangi Tribunal found that the Crown’s decision to accept the right of Ngāti Ruanui to settle historical claims in south Taranaki on behalf of Pakakohi and Tangahoe was ‘safe’.

The Tribunal found that the claimants, the Te Runanganui o Te Pakakohi Trust Incorporation and the Te Iwi o Tangahoe Incorporation, had not demonstrated a mandate to represent Pakakohi and Tangahoe in settlement negotiations. By contrast, the Tribunal found that there was insufficient evidence that the Crown’s decision to recognise the mandate of the Ngāti Ruanui negotiating body to represent these groups was ‘unsafe’.

The two claimants groups had alleged that the Crown’s decision not to negotiate separate settlements with them was in breach of the Treaty. However, the Tribunal found that the overwhelming majority of Tangahoe and Pakakohi people supported the proposed settlement.

The claims were heard in November 2000 by the Tribunal as a matter of urgency after the Crown and Ngāti Ruanui had signalled an intention to sign a $41 million settlement that month. The Tribunal had earlier that year attempted to resolve the matter by facilitating a mediation process between the parties, but that process had been unsuccessful.

In endorsing the Crown’s mandating decisions, the Tribunal nevertheless recommended that discussions between the parties continue in order to find ways to better express the importance of the Pakakohi and Tangahoe traditions to Ngāti Ruanui in the deed of settlement.Were those traditions not factored in, said the Tribunal, a real danger would exist that ‘the Pakakohi and Tangahoe identities would be written out of Taranaki history’. That, said the Tribunal, would create a fresh grievance out of the settlement of an old one.

This claim was separated from the large group of Hauraki claims because it dealt with the contemporary issue of the management of the Hauraki Gulf rather than with the historical grievances of the Hauraki people.

The claimants believed that the Crown had established a management regime under the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 that was inconsistent with its duties of active protection of their rangatiratanga and kaitiakitanga. They asserted that their claims to customary title and rights in the foreshore and seabed were prejudiced by this Act.

The Tribunal acknowledged the considerable area of agreement between the claimants and the Crown on the need to enhance preservation and protection of the Hauraki Gulf. There was also agreement that a forum, where tangata whenua and territorial authorities could regularly meet to monitor the development of the park and formulate policy, was a sound idea. The Tribunal accepted that the iwi represented by the Hauraki Māori Trust board are tangata whenua of Tikapa Moana.

‘However the physical boundaries of the park are greater than the rohe of Hauraki iwi represented by the Board, and include other groups who can equally claim to be tangata whenua of the park. As part of its Treaty obligations, the Crown must include those tangata whenua in the Hauraki Gulf Forum, and it has done so.’
The Waitangi Tribunal

The Tribunal did not see any fundamental Treaty breach in the legislation per se. It made no specific findings as it was not convinced that the Hauraki iwi had been prejudiced by the passing of the Hauraki Marine Park Act 2000.

‘We would encourage all parties to focus on what they agree on: the need for the Hauraki Gulf environment to be protected for future generations. This is the spirit and intention of the Act, which provides a framework for all parties to work together towards this common goal.’
The Waitangi Tribunal

   'A wananga is characterised by teaching and research that maintains, advances and disseminates knowledge and develops intellectual independence, and assists the application of knowledge regarding ahuatanga Maori (Maori tradition) according to tikanga Maori (Maori custom).'
    Section 162(4)(b)(iv) of the Education Act 1989

The Wananga Capital Establishment Report relates to a claim by three wananga Maori established as tertiary education institutions under the Education Act 1989. The claim concerned the failure of the Crown to recognise the right of Maori, in terms of the Treaty of Waitangi, to receive capital funding, in order to provide properly for the education of Maori through programmes, and in an environment, designed to enhance their tertiary educational opportunities.

‘As Maori studies is located within a western university, it is subject to the western paradigm of knowledge which has severely hindered its growth. Such a circumstance is not tolerated for western science nor should it be tolerated for matauranga Maori.’
Charles Royal

‘The rapid increase in Maori participation in tertiary education requires a variety of strategies. That there is not only one strategy to be followed, nor only one type of provider to be involved. However, the three wananga are important elements in any strategy. They are different from other providers and different from each other. This diversity is to be welcomed. All three wananga need agreed programmes for rapid development.’
Dr Norman Kingsbury

The claim was filed with the Waitangi Tribunal on 11 May 1998 and registered as Wai 718 on 19 May 1998. It was brought by Rongo Herehere Wetere on behalf of Te Tauihu o nga Wananga Association, which represented the three wananga concerned: Te Wananga o Aotearoa, Te Wananga o Raukawa, and Te Whare Wananga o Awanuiarangi. The claimants alleged that the Crown had failed to fund wananga equitably when compared to other tertiary education institutions, such as universities, polytechnics, and colleges of education. Urgency was sought for the hearing of the claim because two of the wananga were at serious risk of financial collapse, owing to a lack of capital funding.

On 30 June 1998, Judge Richard Kearney granted the claim urgency, and a Tribunal consisting of Judge Kearney, Josephine Anderson, and Keita Walker heard the claim in October, November, and December of that year. The report was presented to the Minister of Maori Affairs and the claimants on 28 April 1999.

The Tribunal found that the Crown's tertiary education policies had served to disadvantage wananga and place their operations at risk, and it recommended that the Crown make a one-off payment to each of the wananga sufficient to:

    * compensate them for moneys invested in their land, buildings, plant, and equipment;
    *  cover the cost of bringing the establishments up to a standard comparable to other tertiary education institutions;
    * and meet the proper costs and disbursements of the claimants incurred in the preparation and presentation of their claims.

    'Read as a whole, the Treaty of Waitangi created a partnership between the Crown and Maori. This partnership was a compact between two distinct peoples with their own culture, language, values, treasures, forms of property, and so forth. The Crown now acknowledges the concept that New Zealand is a bicultural polity and society. Biculturalism is an integral part of the overall Treaty partnership. It involves both cultures existing side by side in New Zealand, each enriching and informing the other. Under this overarching Treaty principle, therefore, the Crown's obligation to foster and support wananga is a clear and powerful one.

    'Rangatiratanga involves, at the very least, a concept of Maori self-management. … The wananga that have been recognised as tertiary education institutions have all developed out of the efforts of Maori iwi groups to provide tertiary education to, in the first instance, their own people; in the second instance, Maori students; and, in the third instance, anyone who wishes to embrace this particular form of education. As such, the efforts of these tribal groups to create and sustain tertiary education institutions are a vital exercise of rangatiratanga. The establishment of wananga as tertiary education institutions recognised by the State represents an attempt to engage actively with the Crown in the exercise of rangatiratanga in the management of new forms of tribal and Maori education. The Crown's Treaty obligation is to foster, support, and assist these efforts. In doing so, the Crown needs to ensure that wananga are able to remain accountable to, and involved in, the communities that created them.

    'In assuming the right to govern, the Crown took upon itself the duty actively to protect Maori interests. It is clear that te reo and matauranga Maori are taonga. It is also clear that the three wananga are playing an important role in studying, transmitting, and preserving these taonga. To meet its Treaty obligation to protect these taonga, the Crown should provide wananga with adequate support and resources in an appropriate manner.'
    The Waitangi Tribunal

The Tribunal did not revisit the general issues surrounding the closure of Napier Hospital. Neither did they consider the merits of restoring Napier Hospital to its former status. That was not a remedy the claimants were seeking.
—Deputy Chief Judge Isaac

The claim required the Tribunal to look at the historical context of hospital services in Napier from 1851 to 1940 and in particular the promise of a hospital to Ahuriri Māori in 1851. The Tribunal found that there was widespread and severe ill health, and the impact of introduced diseases, was a principle cause of the crisis of survival which saw a halving of the national Māori population during the half century after 1840. Ahuriri Māori did not escape, and in the 1930s their health status still lagged far behind that of Pakeha:

Whether the health status of Ahuriri Māori has improved or worsened over the last decade, the disparity in health status between Ahuriri Maori and non-Maori has shown little if any reduction and has remained markedly adverse. For many Ahuriri Maori the health outcomes remain poor. A significant proportion of the ill health suffered by Ahuriri Maori was preventable, and not prevented.

The Tribunal looked at a number of issues that arose during the 1980s and 1990s in its report. These issues included consultation with Ahuriri Māori on decisions affecting the status of Napier Hospital with decisions to regionalise hospital services in Hastings and downgrade or close Napier Hospital. Representation at decision making levels was another issue where the Crown was in breach of the principle of partnership with an imbalance of Māori representation on the Hawke’s Bay Hospital Board. Neither was there sufficient participation by Māori to sustain the Māori Health Unit’s objectives.

The Tribunal recommended a community health centre governed by trustees on behalf of Ahuriri Māori and bicultural in character, serving the special needs of Ahuriri Māori but open to all. It suggested that the centre should function as an integrated care organisation providing a variety of primary, public, promotional, educational, and rongoa Māori services.

The Tribunal recommended that the Crown take early steps to conclude an agreement in principle with the claimants on the concept, and that the Napier Hospital site should be transferred to the Residual Health Management Unit and the proceeds be vested in trust, for the purpose of endowering the community health centre.

On 24 June 2006, on a sunny windless day at Ngahutoitoi marae near Paeroa, the Tribunal presented the Hauraki Report to the assembled claimants. This ceremony, following presentation of the report to the Minister of Maori Affairs, was the culmination of some seven years work, covering 56 claims within the Hauraki Inquiry District.

The report is the largest in the Tribunal’s history and comprises three volumes, 1310 pages in all. The first claims were lodged by the Hauraki Maori Trust Board, constituted under act of parliament in 1988 to represent the 12 main iwi in the district’s complex tribal structure. Subsequently, many of the constituent iwi and hapu lodged separate claims.

The Tribunal appointed to hear the claims were Dame Augusta Wallace, presiding officer, John Kneebone, Professor Wharehuia Milroy, and Dame Evelyn Stokes. To our great regret and sorrow, Dame Evelyn died in August 2005, when the report to which she had made invaluable contributions was near completion. Hearings of claims and evidence began in September 1998 and concluded in November 2002. Assessing the evidence accumulated over four years of hearings, and reporting on the many claims, placed considerable demands on the Tribunal’s resources.

This is the first time that issues relating to gold mining, a central feature of the Hauraki claims, have been considered in depth by the Waitangi Tribunal. The claimants did not argue that gold, separately from land, is a traditional taonga, like pounamu. They owned the land, however, and everything in the land, and they controlled the access to it. The key questions were whether the Crown waited upon the owners’ full and free consent to open the land for mining, and whether the payments to owners for the right of access – the mining cessions or leases negotiated over Coromandel, Thames, Ohinemuri and elsewhere – were fair.

The Tribunal found that in the 1860s the Crown did generally negotiate openly and fairly and that the payments to owners of the annual miner’s rights fees and lease rentals for residential and business sites (rather than a royalty on gold actually extracted), were reasonable. This finding is related to the huge capital costs involved in quartz mining, which could be borne only by companies, as distinct from alluvial mining which can be done by individuals or small groups of miners.

However, the Tribunal found that undue pressure was brought to bear in some cases, especially in Ohinemuri, and that the Crown unilaterally reduced the scale of fees in the 1880s, when the mining industry was in difficulties. Even more seriously, the Crown systematically pursued the purchase of the freehold of land already subject to mining cessions. In 1940, a commision of inquiry found that Maori owners had not been fully advised that sale of the freehold meant that they were no longer entitled to the mining revenue, that the Crown, as holder of the mining leases, had at least a moral obligation to so advise them, and that a substantial ex gratia payment should be made. The Crown has conceded in the Tribunal’s proceedings that this payment should have been made. The Tribunal has welcomed the Crown’s concession and recommended that 1940 recommendation should be implemented ‘fully and in a generous spirit’.

Raupatu, the confiscation of land by the Crown during the wars of the 1860s, was another major issue in Hauraki. The Crown asked the Tribunal to examine the whole question of the war in Waikato and Hauraki, which had not been previously considered by the Tribunal because the Waikato Raupatu Claims Settlement Act 1995 was based upon direct negotiations between Tainui and the Crown. The Tribunal found that responsibility for the renewal of war in 1863 indeed lay largely with Governor Grey and his Ministers, and that the wholesale confiscation of land, including Hauraki land as well as Waikato land, was unwarranted and in breach of the Treaty. Moreover, the Crown has conceded that very little land was subsequently returned to the Hauraki tribes, following earlier inquiries.

The Tribunal has welcomed this concession, because of the seriousness of the injuries to Hauraki iwi by war and raupatu. In relation to the intersecting claims of Tainui and Hauraki over the Maramurua forest, the Tribunal had concluded that the Crown has met its obligations concerning the forest under the 1995 act, and that the forest lands, and other Crown lands in Hauraki, are potentially open to negotiations between Hauraki and the Office of Treaty Settlements in settlement of the Hauraki claims.

The Crown’s systematic purchase of Hauraki lands was a third major aspect of the Hauraki claims. Despite early purchases and confiscation, Hauraki iwi in 1865 still possessed some 80 per cent of their traditional lands. By 1900, they possessed no more than 20 per cent and at the time of hearing only about 2.6 per cent.

This dispossession had been carried out under the mechanisms provided by the Native Land Acts and under legislation which secured the Crown a monopoly right of purchase over most Hauraki land. The tribes did not generally have access to an open market or the opportunity to lease. The Tribunal’s report shows that (contrary to general opinion) the Native Lands Act 1862 was applied in Hauraki, without the two-stage process provided of first granting a tribal title then allowing the community to make considered decisions about multiple uses of the land, including their own farming or forestry enterprises as well as sale and leasing. Subsequent legislation – notably the 1865 and 1873 Acts – were little more than convenient mechanisms to divide the owners and facilitate purchase.

Despite successive governments’ rhetoric that they wished Maori as well as settlers to develop land, Maori aspirations in this regard were persistently frustrated, rather than fostered, by the Native Land Acts. Even after the Stout–Ngata commission in 1907 reported that Hauraki tribes could not afford to sell any more land, the 1909 Act again included mechanisms to facilitate purchase and the Crown launched a further campaign of systematic purchase in the district. The Tribunal has concluded that systematic purchase under the Native Land Acts exceeded even war and raupatu in its far-reaching and damaging consequences to Hauraki Maori.

In this report, and in its earlier report on Tikapa Moana (the Hauraki Gulf), the Tribunal has recognised the enormous importance to Maori of the seas, foreshores and inland waterways. In relation to foreshores and the seabed, the Hauraki Tribunal did not revisit the legal issues reported upon by a previous Tribunal but it did examine the complexity of customary interests in the Thames and Coromandel foreshores. It also concluded that the Crown’s withdrawal of the Native Land Court’s jurisdiction over foreshores after 1872 prejudiced Maori interests.

The Hauraki claims related to many issues which arise in other districts as well: old land claims and pre-emption waiver purchases, Crown purchases before 1865, the purchase of timber, thermal springs, the loss of taonga and wahi tapu, the rating of Maori land, and public works takings. In short, this is one of the most far-ranging and comprehensive reports produced under the Treaty of Waitangi Act.  It will assist in the settlement of the historical claims process generally. Moreover, for the general as well as the academic reader, it modifies existing historical understandings of many of the most important issues in post-1840 New Zealand.

On 24 June 2006, on a sunny windless day at Ngahutoitoi marae near Paeroa, the Tribunal presented the Hauraki Report to the assembled claimants. This ceremony, following presentation of the report to the Minister of Maori Affairs, was the culmination of some seven years work, covering 56 claims within the Hauraki Inquiry District.

The report is the largest in the Tribunal’s history and comprises three volumes, 1310 pages in all. The first claims were lodged by the Hauraki Maori Trust Board, constituted under act of parliament in 1988 to represent the 12 main iwi in the district’s complex tribal structure. Subsequently, many of the constituent iwi and hapu lodged separate claims.

The Tribunal appointed to hear the claims were Dame Augusta Wallace, presiding officer, John Kneebone, Professor Wharehuia Milroy, and Dame Evelyn Stokes. To our great regret and sorrow, Dame Evelyn died in August 2005, when the report to which she had made invaluable contributions was near completion. Hearings of claims and evidence began in September 1998 and concluded in November 2002. Assessing the evidence accumulated over four years of hearings, and reporting on the many claims, placed considerable demands on the Tribunal’s resources.

This is the first time that issues relating to gold mining, a central feature of the Hauraki claims, have been considered in depth by the Waitangi Tribunal. The claimants did not argue that gold, separately from land, is a traditional taonga, like pounamu. They owned the land, however, and everything in the land, and they controlled the access to it. The key questions were whether the Crown waited upon the owners’ full and free consent to open the land for mining, and whether the payments to owners for the right of access – the mining cessions or leases negotiated over Coromandel, Thames, Ohinemuri and elsewhere – were fair.

The Tribunal found that in the 1860s the Crown did generally negotiate openly and fairly and that the payments to owners of the annual miner’s rights fees and lease rentals for residential and business sites (rather than a royalty on gold actually extracted), were reasonable. This finding is related to the huge capital costs involved in quartz mining, which could be borne only by companies, as distinct from alluvial mining which can be done by individuals or small groups of miners.

However, the Tribunal found that undue pressure was brought to bear in some cases, especially in Ohinemuri, and that the Crown unilaterally reduced the scale of fees in the 1880s, when the mining industry was in difficulties. Even more seriously, the Crown systematically pursued the purchase of the freehold of land already subject to mining cessions. In 1940, a commision of inquiry found that Maori owners had not been fully advised that sale of the freehold meant that they were no longer entitled to the mining revenue, that the Crown, as holder of the mining leases, had at least a moral obligation to so advise them, and that a substantial ex gratia payment should be made. The Crown has conceded in the Tribunal’s proceedings that this payment should have been made. The Tribunal has welcomed the Crown’s concession and recommended that 1940 recommendation should be implemented ‘fully and in a generous spirit’.

Raupatu, the confiscation of land by the Crown during the wars of the 1860s, was another major issue in Hauraki. The Crown asked the Tribunal to examine the whole question of the war in Waikato and Hauraki, which had not been previously considered by the Tribunal because the Waikato Raupatu Claims Settlement Act 1995 was based upon direct negotiations between Tainui and the Crown. The Tribunal found that responsibility for the renewal of war in 1863 indeed lay largely with Governor Grey and his Ministers, and that the wholesale confiscation of land, including Hauraki land as well as Waikato land, was unwarranted and in breach of the Treaty. Moreover, the Crown has conceded that very little land was subsequently returned to the Hauraki tribes, following earlier inquiries.

The Tribunal has welcomed this concession, because of the seriousness of the injuries to Hauraki iwi by war and raupatu. In relation to the intersecting claims of Tainui and Hauraki over the Maramurua forest, the Tribunal had concluded that the Crown has met its obligations concerning the forest under the 1995 act, and that the forest lands, and other Crown lands in Hauraki, are potentially open to negotiations between Hauraki and the Office of Treaty Settlements in settlement of the Hauraki claims.

The Crown’s systematic purchase of Hauraki lands was a third major aspect of the Hauraki claims. Despite early purchases and confiscation, Hauraki iwi in 1865 still possessed some 80 per cent of their traditional lands. By 1900, they possessed no more than 20 per cent and at the time of hearing only about 2.6 per cent.

This dispossession had been carried out under the mechanisms provided by the Native Land Acts and under legislation which secured the Crown a monopoly right of purchase over most Hauraki land. The tribes did not generally have access to an open market or the opportunity to lease. The Tribunal’s report shows that (contrary to general opinion) the Native Lands Act 1862 was applied in Hauraki, without the two-stage process provided of first granting a tribal title then allowing the community to make considered decisions about multiple uses of the land, including their own farming or forestry enterprises as well as sale and leasing. Subsequent legislation – notably the 1865 and 1873 Acts – were little more than convenient mechanisms to divide the owners and facilitate purchase.

Despite successive governments’ rhetoric that they wished Maori as well as settlers to develop land, Maori aspirations in this regard were persistently frustrated, rather than fostered, by the Native Land Acts. Even after the Stout–Ngata commission in 1907 reported that Hauraki tribes could not afford to sell any more land, the 1909 Act again included mechanisms to facilitate purchase and the Crown launched a further campaign of systematic purchase in the district. The Tribunal has concluded that systematic purchase under the Native Land Acts exceeded even war and raupatu in its far-reaching and damaging consequences to Hauraki Maori.

In this report, and in its earlier report on Tikapa Moana (the Hauraki Gulf), the Tribunal has recognised the enormous importance to Maori of the seas, foreshores and inland waterways. In relation to foreshores and the seabed, the Hauraki Tribunal did not revisit the legal issues reported upon by a previous Tribunal but it did examine the complexity of customary interests in the Thames and Coromandel foreshores. It also concluded that the Crown’s withdrawal of the Native Land Court’s jurisdiction over foreshores after 1872 prejudiced Maori interests.

The Hauraki claims related to many issues which arise in other districts as well: old land claims and pre-emption waiver purchases, Crown purchases before 1865, the purchase of timber, thermal springs, the loss of taonga and wahi tapu, the rating of Maori land, and public works takings. In short, this is one of the most far-ranging and comprehensive reports produced under the Treaty of Waitangi Act.  It will assist in the settlement of the historical claims process generally. Moreover, for the general as well as the academic reader, it modifies existing historical understandings of many of the most important issues in post-1840 New Zealand.

On 24 June 2006, on a sunny windless day at Ngahutoitoi marae near Paeroa, the Tribunal presented the Hauraki Report to the assembled claimants. This ceremony, following presentation of the report to the Minister of Maori Affairs, was the culmination of some seven years work, covering 56 claims within the Hauraki Inquiry District.

The report is the largest in the Tribunal’s history and comprises three volumes, 1310 pages in all. The first claims were lodged by the Hauraki Maori Trust Board, constituted under act of parliament in 1988 to represent the 12 main iwi in the district’s complex tribal structure. Subsequently, many of the constituent iwi and hapu lodged separate claims.

The Tribunal appointed to hear the claims were Dame Augusta Wallace, presiding officer, John Kneebone, Professor Wharehuia Milroy, and Dame Evelyn Stokes. To our great regret and sorrow, Dame Evelyn died in August 2005, when the report to which she had made invaluable contributions was near completion. Hearings of claims and evidence began in September 1998 and concluded in November 2002. Assessing the evidence accumulated over four years of hearings, and reporting on the many claims, placed considerable demands on the Tribunal’s resources.

This is the first time that issues relating to gold mining, a central feature of the Hauraki claims, have been considered in depth by the Waitangi Tribunal. The claimants did not argue that gold, separately from land, is a traditional taonga, like pounamu. They owned the land, however, and everything in the land, and they controlled the access to it. The key questions were whether the Crown waited upon the owners’ full and free consent to open the land for mining, and whether the payments to owners for the right of access – the mining cessions or leases negotiated over Coromandel, Thames, Ohinemuri and elsewhere – were fair.

The Tribunal found that in the 1860s the Crown did generally negotiate openly and fairly and that the payments to owners of the annual miner’s rights fees and lease rentals for residential and business sites (rather than a royalty on gold actually extracted), were reasonable. This finding is related to the huge capital costs involved in quartz mining, which could be borne only by companies, as distinct from alluvial mining which can be done by individuals or small groups of miners.

However, the Tribunal found that undue pressure was brought to bear in some cases, especially in Ohinemuri, and that the Crown unilaterally reduced the scale of fees in the 1880s, when the mining industry was in difficulties. Even more seriously, the Crown systematically pursued the purchase of the freehold of land already subject to mining cessions. In 1940, a commision of inquiry found that Maori owners had not been fully advised that sale of the freehold meant that they were no longer entitled to the mining revenue, that the Crown, as holder of the mining leases, had at least a moral obligation to so advise them, and that a substantial ex gratia payment should be made. The Crown has conceded in the Tribunal’s proceedings that this payment should have been made. The Tribunal has welcomed the Crown’s concession and recommended that 1940 recommendation should be implemented ‘fully and in a generous spirit’.

Raupatu, the confiscation of land by the Crown during the wars of the 1860s, was another major issue in Hauraki. The Crown asked the Tribunal to examine the whole question of the war in Waikato and Hauraki, which had not been previously considered by the Tribunal because the Waikato Raupatu Claims Settlement Act 1995 was based upon direct negotiations between Tainui and the Crown. The Tribunal found that responsibility for the renewal of war in 1863 indeed lay largely with Governor Grey and his Ministers, and that the wholesale confiscation of land, including Hauraki land as well as Waikato land, was unwarranted and in breach of the Treaty. Moreover, the Crown has conceded that very little land was subsequently returned to the Hauraki tribes, following earlier inquiries.

The Tribunal has welcomed this concession, because of the seriousness of the injuries to Hauraki iwi by war and raupatu. In relation to the intersecting claims of Tainui and Hauraki over the Maramurua forest, the Tribunal had concluded that the Crown has met its obligations concerning the forest under the 1995 act, and that the forest lands, and other Crown lands in Hauraki, are potentially open to negotiations between Hauraki and the Office of Treaty Settlements in settlement of the Hauraki claims.

The Crown’s systematic purchase of Hauraki lands was a third major aspect of the Hauraki claims. Despite early purchases and confiscation, Hauraki iwi in 1865 still possessed some 80 per cent of their traditional lands. By 1900, they possessed no more than 20 per cent and at the time of hearing only about 2.6 per cent.

This dispossession had been carried out under the mechanisms provided by the Native Land Acts and under legislation which secured the Crown a monopoly right of purchase over most Hauraki land. The tribes did not generally have access to an open market or the opportunity to lease. The Tribunal’s report shows that (contrary to general opinion) the Native Lands Act 1862 was applied in Hauraki, without the two-stage process provided of first granting a tribal title then allowing the community to make considered decisions about multiple uses of the land, including their own farming or forestry enterprises as well as sale and leasing. Subsequent legislation – notably the 1865 and 1873 Acts – were little more than convenient mechanisms to divide the owners and facilitate purchase.

Despite successive governments’ rhetoric that they wished Maori as well as settlers to develop land, Maori aspirations in this regard were persistently frustrated, rather than fostered, by the Native Land Acts. Even after the Stout–Ngata commission in 1907 reported that Hauraki tribes could not afford to sell any more land, the 1909 Act again included mechanisms to facilitate purchase and the Crown launched a further campaign of systematic purchase in the district. The Tribunal has concluded that systematic purchase under the Native Land Acts exceeded even war and raupatu in its far-reaching and damaging consequences to Hauraki Maori.

In this report, and in its earlier report on Tikapa Moana (the Hauraki Gulf), the Tribunal has recognised the enormous importance to Maori of the seas, foreshores and inland waterways. In relation to foreshores and the seabed, the Hauraki Tribunal did not revisit the legal issues reported upon by a previous Tribunal but it did examine the complexity of customary interests in the Thames and Coromandel foreshores. It also concluded that the Crown’s withdrawal of the Native Land Court’s jurisdiction over foreshores after 1872 prejudiced Maori interests.

The Hauraki claims related to many issues which arise in other districts as well: old land claims and pre-emption waiver purchases, Crown purchases before 1865, the purchase of timber, thermal springs, the loss of taonga and wahi tapu, the rating of Maori land, and public works takings. In short, this is one of the most far-ranging and comprehensive reports produced under the Treaty of Waitangi Act.  It will assist in the settlement of the historical claims process generally. Moreover, for the general as well as the academic reader, it modifies existing historical understandings of many of the most important issues in post-1840 New Zealand.

In March 1997, Dame Augusta Wallace was appointed presiding officer for the Waitangi Tribunal’s inquiry into the Kaipara district, and the remaining members of this Tribunal were appointed in June 1997. The records of inquiry of various claims relating to the Kaipara region were combined under the reference number Wai 674 in July 1997. The inquiry district was divided into three areas (stages 1, 2, and 3), to be heard in sequence. Hearings for stage 1 claims commenced in August 1997 and continued until June 1998. The main Te Uri o Hau claims (Wai 229 and Wai 271) were heard by the Tribunal in stage 1. While this stage of the inquiry was in progress, counsel for Wai 229 and Wai 271 made a series of submissions asking the Tribunal to issue an interim report at the completion of the stage 1 hearings. The claimants sought an interim report or preliminary indications from the Tribunal, with a view to entering into direct negotiations with the Crown for the settlement of their claims as soon as possible.

Claims in the Kaipara inquiry fall into three categories:

• those historical claims which will be settled as soon as the Te Uri o Hau Claims Settlement Bill is enacted;
• those claims which are part of the Kaipara inquiry but have not been heard by the Tribunal; and
• those claims which have been heard by the Tribunal but are not included in the Te Uri o Hau settlement.

The reasons for the Kaipara Tribunal's decision to issue this interim report are set out in the following memorandum, which was originally intended for the relevant Ministers:

The members of the Tribunal constituted to hear the Kaipara claims met on 1 May and 6 June 2002, and, after lengthy discussion, unanimously reached the following conclusions. One member was absent from the meetings, but has separately signified his agreement to this memorandum.

1. The Waitangi Tribunal is a permanent commission of inquiry with a statutory responsiblity to inquire into Maori claims of breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi.

2. Independent of the Tribunal process, the Crown reserves to itself the power to negotiate directly with Maori claimants.

3. Before this Tribunal has reported on the Kaipara claims (including Te Uri o Hau claims as defined in the Te Uri o Hau Claims Settlement Bill), the Crown has chosen to negotiate separately with Te Uri o Hau, in isolation from all the other Kaipara claims.

4. The Te Uri o Hau Claims Settlement Act, when passed, will exclude the Tribunal from jurisdiction in relation to those Te Uri o Hau claims.

5. In this Tribunal's view, generic grievances, in relation to which the Crown has admitted culpability in the Te Uri o Hau Settlement, are common to claims throughout the whole Kaipara inquiry district.

6. These generic grievances could be the basis for negotiations and settlements of claims throughout the region. While the Tribunal exercises a separate jurisdiction, it believes that it could be in the interests of other Kaipara claimants for the Crown to enter into direct negotiations with them. In making this statement, this Tribunal is mindful of the dictates of natural justice and the need for that to be perceived by all.

7. Were the Kaipara Tribunal to report on those generic grievances, it would find itself, in general terms, in sympathy with the acknowledgements of Treaty breaches which the Crown has made in the Te Uri o Hau settlement.

8. As soon as possible, the Tribunal intends to publish a brief report of its interim findings in relation to those generic grievances in respect of all Kaipara claims, excepting only Te Uri o Hau claims (as defined above). The Tribunal is aware that this might assist Kaipara claimants and the Crown, should the parties wish to negotiate directly.

9. The Tribunal will consider whether to report finally, in its usual manner, on the Kaipara claims, or any part thereof (other than Te Uri o Hau claims), on application to this Tribunal by the Crown or claimants. Such an application will be notified to all parties to the Kaipara inquiry.

10. The Kaipara Tribunal takes this somewhat unusual course in this inquiry due to the particular circumstances that have arisen following direct Crown negotiations and settlement with Te Uri o Hau, in isolation from the rest of the Kaipara claims, and in advance of the Tribunal reporting. This situation of dual or competing processes occurring in tandem has caused the Tribunal to consider the matter at length. While not vacating its statutory jurisdiction, the Kaipara Tribunal is proposing this course of action in an endeavour to be practical and fair to all parties.

Before this memorandum could be sent to the Ministers, the announcement of a general election on 27 July 2002 was made, and the memorandum was held over for the incoming Government. The Tribunal decided to proceed with its intention of issuing a brief report of its interim findings in respect of generic issues acknowledged by the Crown in the Te Uri o Hau Claims Settlement Bill.

The report covers 14 individual claims stretching from Dargaville down the West Coast to Muriwai, and from Mangawhai on the East Coast to Riverhead on the Waitemata Harbour. The Tribunal concluded that claimants were prejudiced by numerous breaches around these issues and that several breaches to articles 2 and 3 of the Treaty of Waitangi had occurred. The Tribunal finds that the Ngati Whatua o Kaipara claim (Wai 312), and four other southern Kaipara claims, are well founded. This report also contains a minority opinion from one of the Kaipara Tribunal members, Dr Michael Bassett.