Search Inquiry Documents

This report concerns the raupatu (confiscation) of Maori land in the Tauranga district, following the war of 1864. The report covers 55 separate claims. The claimants represent several iwi, including Ngati Ranginui, Ngai Te Rangi, Waitaha, and the Marutuahu people. The Tribunal's inquiry was not the first but it was the fullest inquiry into the confiscation that has ever been conducted. In contrast to the royal commission of 1927, which reported on the Tauranga confiscation and concluded that Tauranga Maori had not been badly treated, the Tribunal found that they have substantial grievances. The key findings of the majority report are outlined below.

War at Tauranga

The battles at Gate Pa (Pukehinahina) on 29 April 1864 and Te Ranga on 21 July 1864 followed on from the Waikato war. The Tribunal found that the Crown breached the Treaty in substantial ways by landing troops at Tauranga and attacking local Maori. This resulted in large-scale loss of life and property on the part of Tauranga Maori. The Crown then used the resistance of Tauranga Maori as an excuse to confiscate their land, breaching the Treaty obligation to allow Maori to retain ownership and control of their land. The Crown justified the confiscation on the ground that Maori were in 'rebellion'. However, the Tribunal rejected this justification because it failed to take into account the circumstances of New Zealand in the 1860s.

Loss of land

The report details the loss of Maori land as a result of raupatu. The entire Tauranga district, estimated at 290,000 acres, was included in the confiscation proclamation of 1865. Of this area, the Crown retained a 50,000-acre area known as the 'confiscated block'. Though the land outside the 50,000-acre block was returned to Maori between 1865 and 1886, most of this land was quickly lost from Maori ownership as well. The Crown purchased some 90,000 acres within the district known as the Te Puna-Katikati block and a further area of 'returned land', estimated at 75,000 acres, was sold to the Crown or private purchasers. By 1886, Tauranga Maori retained only an estimated 75,000 acres of relatively poor quality land and this was no longer held under customary title.

The confiscated block

The confiscation of 50,000 acres of land in the central part of the district, was a Treaty breach that was never really contested by the Crown in the Tribunal's inquiry. The Crown did argue that because the amount of land finally taken from Tauranga Maori was relatively small, little actual prejudice to Tauranga Maori resulted. The Tribunal rejected this and concluded that the Tauranga confiscation was a grave injustice on the part of the Crown, which has severely hindered the aspirations of Tauranga Maori since the 1860s. In particular, the Tribunal found that the hapu of Ngati Ranginui, who lived largely within the confiscated block, lost most of their land and have suffered deprivation as a result.

Te Puna-Katikati Crown purchase

In August 1864, in an effort to acquire more land, some Government Ministers took a number of Ngai Te Rangi chiefs to Auckland and persuaded them to sign a deed to sell the land from Te Puna through to Katikati. The chiefs of Ngati Pukenga, Ngati Ranginui, and Marutuahu, as well as many of Ngai Te Rangi, were not consulted and thus never agreed to sell their land in the area. Despite the protests of these rangatira, the Government insisted that the land had been sold. Some chiefs not party to the original transaction eventually got some payment but they were not allowed to keep their land. The Treaty of Waitangi promised Maori they could retain their land for as long as they so desired but the Crown did not allow Maori to retain Te Puna-Katikati. The Tribunal found that this, too, was a significant breach of the Treaty.

Returned land

The report also details the fate of the land returned to Maori outside the 50,000-acre confiscated block and the Te Puna-Katikati block. The Crown used land commissioners to ascertain rights to this land and returned it to them over the next 20 years. But it was returned in individual rather than customary title and could be sold to the Crown or Pakeha without the consent of local chiefs. All but some 75,000 acres was sold by 1886. The Crown took advantage of this situation to purchase some significant blocks of land including, even, the sacred mountain of Mauao (Mount Maunganui) - despite the protests of the leading chief of the area.

Conclusion

Tauranga Maori suffered considerable prejudice as a result of breaches of the principles of the Treaty arising from the Crown's confiscation, return and purchase of Maori land in the Tauranga district before 1886. It is the recommendation of the Tribunal that the Crown move quickly to settle the Tauranga claims with generous redress.

Minority opinion

One member of the Tauranga Tribunal - the Honourable Dr Michael Bassett - wrote a five-page dissenting opinion in which he takes issue with three of the general findings of the majority members. These are: that the Crown was not justified in taking military action against Tauranga Maori in the 1860s, that the Crown breached the Treaty by individualising the tenure of Maori land at Tauranga, and that the Crown failed to adequately supervise the alienation of returned Maori land. However, despite his dissenting views on these points, Dr Bassett concluded that the other Treaty breaches suffered by Tauranga Maori were serious enough to warrant generous redress from the Crown. He stated in his opinion that 'my conclusions do not warrant any lessening of the quantum of settlement made with Tauranga Maori'.

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.