Search Inquiry Documents

The Waitangi Tribunal’s Te Mana Whatu Ahuru: Report on Te Rohe Pōtae Claims is the outcome of 277 Treaty claims submitted by Māori of the Te Rohe Pōtae inquiry district. This district extends from Whāingaroa Harbour to northern Taranaki, and inland to the Waikato River and Taumarunui.

The claims in this report have been brought to the Waitangi Tribunal on behalf of a diverse range of groups and individuals. They allege that the Crown breached the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi through a range of actions that resulted in significant prejudice to claimants and their tūpuna. Of the claims that would eventually come to be part of the Te Rohe Pōtae District Inquiry, the first was submitted to the Tribunal in March 1987 by Margaret Makariti Poinga on behalf of herself and members of Ngāti Hikairo. The last was the claim of Angeline Greensill concerning Māui’s dolphin and their threat of extinction, submitted to the Tribunal in September 2014.

The Te Rohe Pōtae Tribunal panel comprised Judge David Ambler (presiding), John Baird, Dr Aroha Harris, Sir Hirini Mead, Professor Pou Temara. After the death of Judge Ambler in 2017, Deputy Chief Judge Caren Fox was appointed to the role of presiding officer.

The Tribunal heard 23 weeks of evidence, including six Ngā Kōrero Tuku Iho hui to hear traditions and oral evidence. Hearings began in March 2010 and ended in February 2015.

The central issue addressed in the first two volumes concerned the negotiations between the leaders of Te Rohe Pōtae – especially Ngāti Maniapoto – and the Crown in the 1880s. The negotiations, and the agreements that resulted, are known by Te Rohe Pōtae Māori as Te Ōhākī Tapu. This term is derived from Te Kī Tapu (the sacred word), a phrase used by Ngāti Maniapoto leaders to describe the conduct they sought from the Crown.

The Tribunal found that the Crown’s representatives in those negotiations acted at times with dishonest and misleading negotiation tactics and promises. The Crown failed to engage as a Treaty partner and did not acknowledge Te Rohe Pōtae Māori tino rangatiratanga. The Tribunal found that the Crown’s significant breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi have caused serious damage to the mana and autonomy of the iwi and hapū of the district.

Volumes 1 and 2 also reviewed numerous other aspects of the Crown’s actions in Te Rohe Potae before 1905. These included the investigation of pre-Treaty land transactions, early Crown land purchasing, the establishment of the Kīngitanga, its implications for Te Rohe Potae Māori, the impacts of war, and the definition and maintenance of the aukati (Māori zone of authority) in Te Rohe Pōtae, which lasted for an unprecedented 20 years.

The report then reviewed Crown actions in relation to the building of the North Island Main Trunk Railway, the introduction of the Native Land Court to the region, and a further phase of Crown land purchasing between 1890 and 1905.

The Tribunal found the claims covered in volumes 1 and 2 of the report to be well founded. In summary, the Crown chose not to give practical effect to the Treaty principle of partnership in Te Rohe Pōtae from 1840 to 1900. It failed to recognise or provide for Te Rohe Pōtae Māori tino rangatiratanga before and during the negotiations collectively described as Te Ōhāki Tapu. This failure resulted in multiple breaches of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, and Te Rohe Pōtae Māori have suffered significant and long-lasting prejudice as a result.

The Tribunal found that, because of these breaches, the opportunity to give proper effect to the Treaty in the district has yet to be fulfilled.

The Tribunal therefore recommended the Crown take immediate steps to act, in conjunction with the mandated settlement group or groups, to put in place means to give effect to their rangatiratanga. The Tribunal said that how this can be achieved will be for the claimants and Crown to decide. However, it recommended that, at a minimum, legislation must be enacted that recognises and affirms the rangatiratanga and the rights of autonomy and self-determination of Te Rohe Pōtae Māori.

In the case of Ngāti Maniapoto, or their mandated representatives, the Tribunal recommended that legislation must take into account and give effect to Te Ōhāki Tapu, in a way that imposes an obligation on the Crown and its agencies to give effect to the right to mana whakahaere.

The Waitangi Tribunal’s Te Mana Whatu Ahuru: Report on Te Rohe Pōtae Claims is the outcome of 277 Treaty claims submitted by Māori of the Te Rohe Pōtae inquiry district. This district extends from Whāingaroa Harbour to northern Taranaki, and inland to the Waikato River and Taumarunui.

The claims in this report have been brought to the Waitangi Tribunal on behalf of a diverse range of groups and individuals. They allege that the Crown breached the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi through a range of actions that resulted in significant prejudice to claimants and their tūpuna. Of the claims that would eventually come to be part of the Te Rohe Pōtae District Inquiry, the first was submitted to the Tribunal in March 1987 by Margaret Makariti Poinga on behalf of herself and members of Ngāti Hikairo. The last was the claim of Angeline Greensill concerning Māui’s dolphin and their threat of extinction, submitted to the Tribunal in September 2014.

The Te Rohe Pōtae Tribunal panel comprised Judge David Ambler (presiding), John Baird, Dr Aroha Harris, Sir Hirini Mead, Professor Pou Temara. After the death of Judge Ambler in 2017, Deputy Chief Judge Caren Fox was appointed to the role of presiding officer.

The Tribunal heard 23 weeks of evidence, including six Ngā Kōrero Tuku Iho hui to hear traditions and oral evidence. Hearings began in March 2010 and ended in February 2015.

The central issue addressed in the first two volumes concerned the negotiations between the leaders of Te Rohe Pōtae – especially Ngāti Maniapoto – and the Crown in the 1880s. The negotiations, and the agreements that resulted, are known by Te Rohe Pōtae Māori as Te Ōhākī Tapu. This term is derived from Te Kī Tapu (the sacred word), a phrase used by Ngāti Maniapoto leaders to describe the conduct they sought from the Crown.

The Tribunal found that the Crown’s representatives in those negotiations acted at times with dishonest and misleading negotiation tactics and promises. The Crown failed to engage as a Treaty partner and did not acknowledge Te Rohe Pōtae Māori tino rangatiratanga. The Tribunal found that the Crown’s significant breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi have caused serious damage to the mana and autonomy of the iwi and hapū of the district.

Volumes 1 and 2 also reviewed numerous other aspects of the Crown’s actions in Te Rohe Potae before 1905. These included the investigation of pre-Treaty land transactions, early Crown land purchasing, the establishment of the Kīngitanga, its implications for Te Rohe Potae Māori, the impacts of war, and the definition and maintenance of the aukati (Māori zone of authority) in Te Rohe Pōtae, which lasted for an unprecedented 20 years.

The report then reviewed Crown actions in relation to the building of the North Island Main Trunk Railway, the introduction of the Native Land Court to the region, and a further phase of Crown land purchasing between 1890 and 1905.

The Tribunal found the claims covered in volumes 1 and 2 of the report to be well founded. In summary, the Crown chose not to give practical effect to the Treaty principle of partnership in Te Rohe Pōtae from 1840 to 1900. It failed to recognise or provide for Te Rohe Pōtae Māori tino rangatiratanga before and during the negotiations collectively described as Te Ōhāki Tapu. This failure resulted in multiple breaches of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, and Te Rohe Pōtae Māori have suffered significant and long-lasting prejudice as a result.

The Tribunal found that, because of these breaches, the opportunity to give proper effect to the Treaty in the district has yet to be fulfilled.

The Tribunal therefore recommended the Crown take immediate steps to act, in conjunction with the mandated settlement group or groups, to put in place means to give effect to their rangatiratanga. The Tribunal said that how this can be achieved will be for the claimants and Crown to decide. However, it recommended that, at a minimum, legislation must be enacted that recognises and affirms the rangatiratanga and the rights of autonomy and self-determination of Te Rohe Pōtae Māori.

In the case of Ngāti Maniapoto, or their mandated representatives, the Tribunal recommended that legislation must take into account and give effect to Te Ōhāki Tapu, in a way that imposes an obligation on the Crown and its agencies to give effect to the right to mana whakahaere.

The Waitangi Tribunal’s Te Mana Whatu Ahuru: Report on Te Rohe Pōtae Claims is the outcome of 277 Treaty claims submitted by Māori of the Te Rohe Pōtae inquiry district. This district extends from Whāingaroa Harbour to northern Taranaki, and inland to the Waikato River and Taumarunui.

The claims in this report have been brought to the Waitangi Tribunal on behalf of a diverse range of groups and individuals. They alleged that the Crown breached the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi through a range of actions that resulted in significant prejudice to claimants and their tūpuna. Of the claims that would eventually come to be part of the Te Rohe Pōtae District Inquiry, the first was submitted to the Tribunal in March 1987 by Margaret Makariti Poinga on behalf of herself and members of Ngāti Hikairo. The last was the claim of Angeline Greensill concerning Māui’s dolphin and their threat of extinction, submitted to the Tribunal in September 2014.

The Te Rohe Pōtae Tribunal panel comprised Judge David Ambler (presiding officer), Sir Hirini Mead, Professor Pou Temara, John Baird, and Dr Aroha Harris. After the death of Judge Ambler in 2017, Deputy Chief Judge Caren Fox was appointed to the role of presiding officer.

The Tribunal heard 23 weeks of evidence, including six Ngā Kōrero Tuku Iho hui to hear traditions and oral evidence. Hearings began in March 2010 and ended in February 2015.

Volume 3 of the report addresses the land policy and legislation that the Crown imposed after 1900 in Te Rohe Pōtae and the implications these had on Māori, who expected to continue to exercise mana whakahaere, or self-government, over their lands and communities. These expectations reflected guarantees of rangatiratanga contained in the Treaty of Waitangi, as well as the (1883–85) agreements Te Rohe Pōtae Māori made with the Crown, known as Te Ōhākī Tapu, that promised to give effect to the Treaty in the district.

Volume 3 examines how the Crown’s legislation and its actions frequently resulted in the alienation of native land in favour of European settlement. Approaches it applied through legislation included: the continued practice of Crown purchasing of shares in land; the creation of Māori land councils and later Māori land boards to act in place of owners; the compulsory vesting of lands in these boards for lease and administration; the establishment of native townships to enable surplus land to be made available for European settlement; the passing of compulsory consolidation of share interests to reform and simplify titles; the broad discretions given to the Native (later Māori) Land Court to facilitate alienations; the compulsory Europeanisation of land between 1967 and 1974 where there were limited numbers of owners; the compulsory acquisition of uneconomic share interests; and the land development schemes which operated in the district.

The Tribunal found numerous breaches related to the Crown’s twentieth-century land legislation, its application in the district, and the administrative actions of its various agencies. 

It further found that the cumulative impact of the Crown’s Treaty breaches regarding land title, tenure, transfer and development in the district resulted in a loss of tino rangatiratanga (full control and authority) over Te Rohe Pōtae lands, the breakdown in social and political relationships, land loss, and enormous social, economic and cultural prejudice, the impacts of which continue to this day.

The Tribunal made one recommendation in this volume. During Treaty settlement negotiations, the Crown should discuss with Te Rohe Pōtae Māori, or their mandated settling group(s), a possible legislative mechanism that will enable Te Rohe Pōtae iwi and hapū to administer their lands, either alongside the Māori Land Court and Te Tumu Paeroa (the Māori Trustee), or as separate entities. The choice is one that necessitates thorough consultation with Māori landowners and should not have any coercive or compulsory elements.

The release of the final volume of the Waitangi Tribunal’s Te Mana Whatu Ahuru: Report on Te Rohe Pōtae Claims, named Take a Tākiwa, completed the Tribunal’s inquiry into Treaty of Waitangi claims submitted by Māori within Te Rohe Pōtae. This district extends from Whāingaroa Harbour to northern Taranaki and inland to the Waikato River and Taumarunui.

The first of the 278 hapū, whānau, iwi, block-specific, and district-wide claims that became part of the Te Rohe Pōtae district inquiry was submitted to the Tribunal in 1987 and the last in 2014. The claims alleged that the Crown breached the principles of the Treaty through a range of actions, omissions, policy, and legislation that resulted in significant prejudice to claimants and their tūpuna. The Tribunal held 23 weeks of hearings between 2012 and 2015 to hear parties’ positions and evidence. These hearings followed six Ngā Kōrero Tuku Iho hui held in 2010 to hear traditional oral evidence.

Volume 6 differs significantly from the five earlier volumes of Te Mana Whatu Ahuru, which were progressively released in pre-publication format since 2018. While those volumes focus on the major thematic issues agreed by parties, volume 6 provides a comprehensive inventory and assessment of all the claims in the Te Rohe Pōtae inquiry. In doing so, it complements and augments the discussion of major kaupapa (thematic) issues in volumes 1 to 5. At the same time, volume 6 shines a light on every individual claim – situating each within its local context and assessing whether it is well founded.

The claims are organised into seven takiwā (sub-regions), which are mostly located around the inquiry district’s major waterways: Waipā-Pūniu, Taumarunui, Kāwhia-Aotea, Whāingaroa, Te Kūiti-Hauāuru, Waimiha-Ōngarue, and Mōkau. There are also a small number of cross-regional claims. Each takiwā is introduced with a map and a short overview of the physical and human landscape.

Every individual claim made by or on behalf of groups affiliated to that takiwā is then summarised. For each claim, the Tribunal records the findings from parts I to V that apply. Where other claim-specific matters arise, the Tribunal makes any additional findings or comment that may be appropriate. Finally, the Tribunal assesses whether the claim is well founded, based on an assessment of whether Crown legislation, policies, actions, or omissions inconsistent with the Treaty have prejudiced the claimants.

The Te Rohe Pōtae Tribunal panel comprised Deputy Chief Judge Caren Fox (presiding), Sir Hirini Mead, Professor Pou Temara, John Baird, and Dr Aroha Harris. Judge Fox was appointed to the role of presiding officer after the original presiding officer, Judge David Ambler, passed away in 2017.

The Waitangi Tribunal’s Te Mana Whatu Ahuru: Report on Te Rohe Pōtae Claims is the outcome of 277 Treaty of Waitangi claims submitted by Māori of the Te Rohe Pōtae inquiry district. This district extends from Whāingaroa Harbour to northern Taranaki, and inland to the Waikato River and Taumarunui.

The claims in the report were brought to the Waitangi Tribunal on behalf of a diverse range of groups and individuals. They alleged that the Crown breached the principles of the Treaty through a range of actions that resulted in significant prejudice to claimants and their tūpuna. Of the claims that would eventually come to be part of the Te Rohe Pōtae District Inquiry, the first was submitted to the Tribunal in March 1987 by Margaret Makariti Poinga on behalf of herself and members of Ngāti Hikairo. The last was the claim of Angeline Greensill concerning Māui’s dolphin and their threat of extinction, submitted to the Tribunal in September 2014.

The Te Rohe Pōtae Tribunal panel comprised Judge David Ambler (presiding officer), Sir Hirini Mead, Professor Pou Temara, John Baird, and Dr Aroha Harris. After the death of Judge Ambler in 2017, Deputy Chief Judge Caren Fox was appointed to the role of presiding officer.

The Tribunal heard 23 weeks of evidence, including six Ngā Kōrero Tuku Iho hui to hear traditions and oral evidence. Hearings began in March 2010 and ended in February 2015.

Tino Rangatiratanga me te Kāwanatanga: The Report on Stage 2 of the Te Paparahi o Te Raki Inquiry, Part I is the outcome of 415 Treaty claims submitted by Māori of the Te Paparahi o te Raki (Northland) inquiry district. This district covers Hokianga, Whangaroa, Bay of Islands, Mangakāhia, Whāngārei, Mahurangi, and the Gulf Islands.

The claims within the Te Paparahi o Te Raki district were brought to the Waitangi Tribunal on behalf of individuals, whānau, hapū, iwi, and affiliated groups. They alleged that the Crown breached the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi in a range of ways, causing significant prejudice to them and their tūpuna. The Tribunal received the claims between 1985 and 2008 and heard them during 26 hearings from March 2013 to October 2017.

Tino Rangatiratanga me te Kāwanatanga focuses on claims and evidence relating to the nineteenth century. It follows the Tribunal’s stage 1 report, He Whakaputanga me te Tiriti/The Declaration and the Treaty: Report on Stage 1 of the Te Paparahi o Te Raki Inquiry, which concluded that the rangatira who signed te Tiriti in the Bay of Islands and Hokianga in February 1840 did not cede their sovereignty. Rather, they agreed to a relationship in which they and the Governor were to be equal, while having different roles and different spheres of influence.

The key issues addressed in this stage 2 report concern land, Māori–Crown political engagement, Crown military action in the claimants’ traditional rohe, and the Crown’s policies toward Māori land in the latter half of the nineteenth century. The Tribunal’s overall finding was that the Crown overstepped the bounds of its kāwanatanga (authority to govern) in Te Raki between 1840 and 1900, leading to the erosion of Te Raki Māori rangatiratanga.

The report begins by introducing the inquiry and the district, establishing the Treaty context for Te Raki claims relating to the nineteenth century, and describing Te Raki communities prior to 1840, before addressing the inquiry issues.

First, the report considers the steps the Crown took to declare sovereignty over the North Island and then all of New Zealand in two proclamations issued by the Queen’s representative Captain William Hobson in May 1840. The Tribunal found that these proclamations breached the principles of the Treaty, as Te Raki Māori who signed te Tiriti had not in fact ceded sovereignty. When negotiating te Tiriti, the Crown did not clarify to Te Raki Māori that it intended to establish a government and legal system under its sole control, nor did it explain that it would assert sovereignty over the whole country, the Tribunal concluded.

Secondly, the report reviews the Crown’s actions before and during the Northern War, in which Ngāpuhi clashed with British forces. The Tribunal found the Crown’s actions in serious breach of the Treaty. The Crown rejected opportunities to talk with Ngāpuhi leaders about their concerns that the Treaty was being ignored, and instead it took military action against them. Among other failures, it initiated attacks on pā and kāinga, made the surrender of land a condition of peace, and did not adequately consider the welfare of non-combatants. These Crown actions had severe short- and long-term effects on Ngāpuhi, the Tribunal considered.

Thirdly, the report considers the Crown’s investigations into pre-1840 land transactions (‘old land claims’). The Tribunal concluded that, prior to 1840, Māori had transacted land with settlers within the context of their own laws and that rangatira expected the Crown to seek their agreement on the nature, shape, and processes for any investigation into these transactions. However, after 1840, the Crown imposed its own processes for determining land rights in these investigations, supplanting the tikanga of Te Raki Māori without their consent. The Crown’s imposition of English legal concepts, its granting of absolute freehold title to settlers, and its own subsequent taking of the surplus were effectively a raupatu (confiscation) of Te Raki Māori tino rangatiranga over thousands of acres of their land, the Tribunal found.

The report then considers the New Zealand Constitution Act 1852, which transferred authority from imperial to colonial Government. The Tribunal determined that this Act breached Treaty principles. It did not allow for Māori representation in Parliament until four seats were added in 1867. The Crown had promised to protect Māori interests and independence under the Treaty, yet it failed to build these protections into the constitution. Instead, it progressively handed governmental authority to the settler population, fundamentally undermining the Treaty relationship. Governors Thomas Gore Browne and George Grey sought different solutions to provide for Māori involvement in the governance of their communities, such as the Kohimarama Rūnanga (a national rūnanga of Māori leaders) in 1860, and Grey’s district rūnanga (intended to provide limited powers of local self-government) in 1861. However, despite Te Raki Māori support for these initiatives, both were short-lived and gave way to directly assimilationist institutions such as the Native Land Court.

The report goes on to review the Crown’s land purchasing policies and practices between 1840 and 1865 and the introduction of the Native Land Court and native land laws in the 1860s. The Tribunal found various Treaty breaches relating to these Crown actions. The Crown’s imposition from 1862 of a new land tenure system that individualised title to Māori customary land, making it more vulnerable to partition, fragmentation, and alienation, was particularly devastating for Te Raki Māori, the Tribunal concluded. This system undermined community control over whenua, eroding the cultural, political, and economic organisation of hapū. It also brought large-scale land loss, with Māori retaining only a third of the inquiry district by 1900. The Tribunal found that the Crown’s nineteenth-century land policies inflicted deep and enduring damage on Te Raki Māori, and it noted the district remains one of the most economically deprived parts of New Zealand today.

Finally, the report considers the efforts of Te Raki Māori to assert their tino rangatiratanga in the late nineteenth century. It sets out the steps that Te Raki Māori and other northern hapū and iwi took to establish regular regional parliaments at Waitangi and Ōrākei. During the 1890s, the Tribunal noted, these groups helped lead attempts by the Kotahitanga movement to establish a national Māori parliament recognised by the Crown. However, the Crown rejected or ignored their proposals for Māori self-government, and it was unwilling to recognise any significant transfer of authority from colonial institutions. The Tribunal concluded that this was a historically unique opportunity to make provision in New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements for Māori tino rangatiratanga at a national level. It found that the Crown’s failure to recognise and respect Te Raki rangatiratanga over this period breached the Treaty and its principles.

The report ends with a number of recommendations to support the Crown and Te Raki Māori in future Treaty settlement negotiations. The Tribunal recommended that the Crown acknowledge the Treaty agreement it entered into with Te Raki rangatira in 1840 and that it apologise for its Treaty breaches. It also recommended that the Crown return all Crown-owned land in the district to Te Raki Māori; that it provide economic compensation; and that it enter into discussions with Te Raki Māori to determine appropriate constitutional processes and institutions at the national, iwi, and hapū levels to recognise, respect, and give effect to their Treaty rights.
 

Tino Rangatiratanga me te Kāwanatanga: The Report on Stage 2 of the Te Paparahi o Te Raki Inquiry, Part I is the outcome of 415 Treaty claims submitted by Māori of the Te Paparahi o te Raki (Northland) inquiry district. This district covers Hokianga, Whangaroa, Bay of Islands, Mangakāhia, Whāngārei, Mahurangi, and the Gulf Islands.

The claims within the Te Paparahi o Te Raki district were brought to the Waitangi Tribunal on behalf of individuals, whānau, hapū, iwi, and affiliated groups. They alleged that the Crown breached the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi in a range of ways, causing significant prejudice to them and their tūpuna. The Tribunal received the claims between 1985 and 2008 and heard them during 26 hearings from March 2013 to October 2017.

Tino Rangatiratanga me te Kāwanatanga focuses on claims and evidence relating to the nineteenth century. It follows the Tribunal’s stage 1 report, He Whakaputanga me te Tiriti/The Declaration and the Treaty: Report on Stage 1 of the Te Paparahi o Te Raki Inquiry, which concluded that the rangatira who signed te Tiriti in the Bay of Islands and Hokianga in February 1840 did not cede their sovereignty. Rather, they agreed to a relationship in which they and the Governor were to be equal, while having different roles and different spheres of influence.

The key issues addressed in this stage 2 report concern land, Māori–Crown political engagement, Crown military action in the claimants’ traditional rohe, and the Crown’s policies toward Māori land in the latter half of the nineteenth century. The Tribunal’s overall finding was that the Crown overstepped the bounds of its kāwanatanga (authority to govern) in Te Raki between 1840 and 1900, leading to the erosion of Te Raki Māori rangatiratanga.

The report begins by introducing the inquiry and the district, establishing the Treaty context for Te Raki claims relating to the nineteenth century, and describing Te Raki communities prior to 1840, before addressing the inquiry issues.

First, the report considers the steps the Crown took to declare sovereignty over the North Island and then all of New Zealand in two proclamations issued by the Queen’s representative Captain William Hobson in May 1840. The Tribunal found that these proclamations breached the principles of the Treaty, as Te Raki Māori who signed te Tiriti had not in fact ceded sovereignty. When negotiating te Tiriti, the Crown did not clarify to Te Raki Māori that it intended to establish a government and legal system under its sole control, nor did it explain that it would assert sovereignty over the whole country, the Tribunal concluded.

Secondly, the report reviews the Crown’s actions before and during the Northern War, in which Ngāpuhi clashed with British forces. The Tribunal found the Crown’s actions in serious breach of the Treaty. The Crown rejected opportunities to talk with Ngāpuhi leaders about their concerns that the Treaty was being ignored, and instead it took military action against them. Among other failures, it initiated attacks on pā and kāinga, made the surrender of land a condition of peace, and did not adequately consider the welfare of non-combatants. These Crown actions had severe short- and long-term effects on Ngāpuhi, the Tribunal considered.

Thirdly, the report considers the Crown’s investigations into pre-1840 land transactions (‘old land claims’). The Tribunal concluded that, prior to 1840, Māori had transacted land with settlers within the context of their own laws and that rangatira expected the Crown to seek their agreement on the nature, shape, and processes for any investigation into these transactions. However, after 1840, the Crown imposed its own processes for determining land rights in these investigations, supplanting the tikanga of Te Raki Māori without their consent. The Crown’s imposition of English legal concepts, its granting of absolute freehold title to settlers, and its own subsequent taking of the surplus were effectively a raupatu (confiscation) of Te Raki Māori tino rangatiranga over thousands of acres of their land, the Tribunal found.

The report then considers the New Zealand Constitution Act 1852, which transferred authority from imperial to colonial Government. The Tribunal determined that this Act breached Treaty principles. It did not allow for Māori representation in Parliament until four seats were added in 1867. The Crown had promised to protect Māori interests and independence under the Treaty, yet it failed to build these protections into the constitution. Instead, it progressively handed governmental authority to the settler population, fundamentally undermining the Treaty relationship. Governors Thomas Gore Browne and George Grey sought different solutions to provide for Māori involvement in the governance of their communities, such as the Kohimarama Rūnanga (a national rūnanga of Māori leaders) in 1860, and Grey’s district rūnanga (intended to provide limited powers of local self-government) in 1861. However, despite Te Raki Māori support for these initiatives, both were short-lived and gave way to directly assimilationist institutions such as the Native Land Court.

The report goes on to review the Crown’s land purchasing policies and practices between 1840 and 1865 and the introduction of the Native Land Court and native land laws in the 1860s. The Tribunal found various Treaty breaches relating to these Crown actions. The Crown’s imposition from 1862 of a new land tenure system that individualised title to Māori customary land, making it more vulnerable to partition, fragmentation, and alienation, was particularly devastating for Te Raki Māori, the Tribunal concluded. This system undermined community control over whenua, eroding the cultural, political, and economic organisation of hapū. It also brought large-scale land loss, with Māori retaining only a third of the inquiry district by 1900. The Tribunal found that the Crown’s nineteenth-century land policies inflicted deep and enduring damage on Te Raki Māori, and it noted the district remains one of the most economically deprived parts of New Zealand today.

Finally, the report considers the efforts of Te Raki Māori to assert their tino rangatiratanga in the late nineteenth century. It sets out the steps that Te Raki Māori and other northern hapū and iwi took to establish regular regional parliaments at Waitangi and Ōrākei. During the 1890s, the Tribunal noted, these groups helped lead attempts by the Kotahitanga movement to establish a national Māori parliament recognised by the Crown. However, the Crown rejected or ignored their proposals for Māori self-government, and it was unwilling to recognise any significant transfer of authority from colonial institutions. The Tribunal concluded that this was a historically unique opportunity to make provision in New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements for Māori tino rangatiratanga at a national level. It found that the Crown’s failure to recognise and respect Te Raki rangatiratanga over this period breached the Treaty and its principles.

The report ends with a number of recommendations to support the Crown and Te Raki Māori in future Treaty settlement negotiations. The Tribunal recommended that the Crown acknowledge the Treaty agreement it entered into with Te Raki rangatira in 1840 and that it apologise for its Treaty breaches. It also recommended that the Crown return all Crown-owned land in the district to Te Raki Māori; that it provide economic compensation; and that it enter into discussions with Te Raki Māori to determine appropriate constitutional processes and institutions at the national, iwi, and hapū levels to recognise, respect, and give effect to their Treaty rights.
 

Tino Rangatiratanga me te Kāwanatanga: The Report on Stage 2 of the Te Paparahi o Te Raki Inquiry, Part I is the outcome of 415 Treaty claims submitted by Māori of the Te Paparahi o te Raki (Northland) inquiry district. This district covers Hokianga, Whangaroa, Bay of Islands, Mangakāhia, Whāngārei, Mahurangi, and the Gulf Islands.

The claims within the Te Paparahi o Te Raki district were brought to the Waitangi Tribunal on behalf of individuals, whānau, hapū, iwi, and affiliated groups. They alleged that the Crown breached the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi in a range of ways, causing significant prejudice to them and their tūpuna. The Tribunal received the claims between 1985 and 2008 and heard them during 26 hearings from March 2013 to October 2017.

Tino Rangatiratanga me te Kāwanatanga focuses on claims and evidence relating to the nineteenth century. It follows the Tribunal’s stage 1 report, He Whakaputanga me te Tiriti/The Declaration and the Treaty: Report on Stage 1 of the Te Paparahi o Te Raki Inquiry, which concluded that the rangatira who signed te Tiriti in the Bay of Islands and Hokianga in February 1840 did not cede their sovereignty. Rather, they agreed to a relationship in which they and the Governor were to be equal, while having different roles and different spheres of influence.

The key issues addressed in this stage 2 report concern land, Māori–Crown political engagement, Crown military action in the claimants’ traditional rohe, and the Crown’s policies toward Māori land in the latter half of the nineteenth century. The Tribunal’s overall finding was that the Crown overstepped the bounds of its kāwanatanga (authority to govern) in Te Raki between 1840 and 1900, leading to the erosion of Te Raki Māori rangatiratanga.

The report begins by introducing the inquiry and the district, establishing the Treaty context for Te Raki claims relating to the nineteenth century, and describing Te Raki communities prior to 1840, before addressing the inquiry issues.

First, the report considers the steps the Crown took to declare sovereignty over the North Island and then all of New Zealand in two proclamations issued by the Queen’s representative Captain William Hobson in May 1840. The Tribunal found that these proclamations breached the principles of the Treaty, as Te Raki Māori who signed te Tiriti had not in fact ceded sovereignty. When negotiating te Tiriti, the Crown did not clarify to Te Raki Māori that it intended to establish a government and legal system under its sole control, nor did it explain that it would assert sovereignty over the whole country, the Tribunal concluded.

Secondly, the report reviews the Crown’s actions before and during the Northern War, in which Ngāpuhi clashed with British forces. The Tribunal found the Crown’s actions in serious breach of the Treaty. The Crown rejected opportunities to talk with Ngāpuhi leaders about their concerns that the Treaty was being ignored, and instead it took military action against them. Among other failures, it initiated attacks on pā and kāinga, made the surrender of land a condition of peace, and did not adequately consider the welfare of non-combatants. These Crown actions had severe short- and long-term effects on Ngāpuhi, the Tribunal considered.

Thirdly, the report considers the Crown’s investigations into pre-1840 land transactions (‘old land claims’). The Tribunal concluded that, prior to 1840, Māori had transacted land with settlers within the context of their own laws and that rangatira expected the Crown to seek their agreement on the nature, shape, and processes for any investigation into these transactions. However, after 1840, the Crown imposed its own processes for determining land rights in these investigations, supplanting the tikanga of Te Raki Māori without their consent. The Crown’s imposition of English legal concepts, its granting of absolute freehold title to settlers, and its own subsequent taking of the surplus were effectively a raupatu (confiscation) of Te Raki Māori tino rangatiranga over thousands of acres of their land, the Tribunal found.

The report then considers the New Zealand Constitution Act 1852, which transferred authority from imperial to colonial Government. The Tribunal determined that this Act breached Treaty principles. It did not allow for Māori representation in Parliament until four seats were added in 1867. The Crown had promised to protect Māori interests and independence under the Treaty, yet it failed to build these protections into the constitution. Instead, it progressively handed governmental authority to the settler population, fundamentally undermining the Treaty relationship. Governors Thomas Gore Browne and George Grey sought different solutions to provide for Māori involvement in the governance of their communities, such as the Kohimarama Rūnanga (a national rūnanga of Māori leaders) in 1860, and Grey’s district rūnanga (intended to provide limited powers of local self-government) in 1861. However, despite Te Raki Māori support for these initiatives, both were short-lived and gave way to directly assimilationist institutions such as the Native Land Court.

The report goes on to review the Crown’s land purchasing policies and practices between 1840 and 1865 and the introduction of the Native Land Court and native land laws in the 1860s. The Tribunal found various Treaty breaches relating to these Crown actions. The Crown’s imposition from 1862 of a new land tenure system that individualised title to Māori customary land, making it more vulnerable to partition, fragmentation, and alienation, was particularly devastating for Te Raki Māori, the Tribunal concluded. This system undermined community control over whenua, eroding the cultural, political, and economic organisation of hapū. It also brought large-scale land loss, with Māori retaining only a third of the inquiry district by 1900. The Tribunal found that the Crown’s nineteenth-century land policies inflicted deep and enduring damage on Te Raki Māori, and it noted the district remains one of the most economically deprived parts of New Zealand today.

Finally, the report considers the efforts of Te Raki Māori to assert their tino rangatiratanga in the late nineteenth century. It sets out the steps that Te Raki Māori and other northern hapū and iwi took to establish regular regional parliaments at Waitangi and Ōrākei. During the 1890s, the Tribunal noted, these groups helped lead attempts by the Kotahitanga movement to establish a national Māori parliament recognised by the Crown. However, the Crown rejected or ignored their proposals for Māori self-government, and it was unwilling to recognise any significant transfer of authority from colonial institutions. The Tribunal concluded that this was a historically unique opportunity to make provision in New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements for Māori tino rangatiratanga at a national level. It found that the Crown’s failure to recognise and respect Te Raki rangatiratanga over this period breached the Treaty and its principles.

The report ends with a number of recommendations to support the Crown and Te Raki Māori in future Treaty settlement negotiations. The Tribunal recommended that the Crown acknowledge the Treaty agreement it entered into with Te Raki rangatira in 1840 and that it apologise for its Treaty breaches. It also recommended that the Crown return all Crown-owned land in the district to Te Raki Māori; that it provide economic compensation; and that it enter into discussions with Te Raki Māori to determine appropriate constitutional processes and institutions at the national, iwi, and hapū levels to recognise, respect, and give effect to their Treaty rights.
 

Haumaru: The COVID-19 Priority Report was the result of a priority inquiry focused on the Crown’s vaccination strategy and the shift to the COVID-19 Protection Framework (also known as the traffic-light system). The inquiry panel comprised Judge Damian Stone (presiding officer), Dr Tom Roa, Tania Simpson, and Professor Linda Tuhiwai Smith, and the hearing took place at the Waitangi Tribunal Unit’s offices in Wellington between Monday 6 December and Friday 10 December 2021.

Concerning the Crown’s vaccination strategy, the Tribunal found that Cabinet’s decision to reject advice from its own officials to adopt an age adjustment for Māori in the vaccine rollout breached the Treaty principles of active protection and equity.

Regarding the Crown’s COVID-19 Protection Framework, the Tribunal found that a new framework was necessary. However, the rapid transition into the framework, which happened faster than the Crown’s officials and experts recommended and without the original vaccination thresholds for each district health board being met, did not adequately account for Māori health needs. As such, Māori were put at a disproportionate risk of being infected by Delta in comparison to other popular groups. This breached the principles of both active protection and equity.

Additionally, the rapid shift to the COVID-19 Protection Framework put Māori health and whānau ora providers under extreme pressure and undermined their ability to provide equitable care for Māori. This was in breach of the principles of both tino rangatiratanga and options.

Finally, the decision to shift into the COVID-19 Protection Framework was made despite strong, unanimous opposition from the Māori health leaders and iwi that the Crown consulted. Further, the Crown did not consistently engage with Māori to the fullest extent practicable on key decisions in its pandemic response. These actions were in breach of the principle of partnership.

The Tribunal recommended that the Crown urgently provide further funding, resourcing, data, and other support to assist Māori providers and communities with:

• the continuing vaccination effort – including the paediatric vaccine and booster vaccine;
• targeted support for whānau hauā and tāngata whaikaha;
• testing and contact tracing;
• caring for Māori infected with COVID-19; and
• self-isolation and managed isolation programmes.

The Tribunal also recommended that the Crown improve its collection of ethnicity data and information relevant to Māori health outcomes and that it prioritise the work to improve the quality of quantitative and qualitative data on tāngata whaikaha and whānau hauā, in partnership with Māori disability care providers and community groups. The Tribunal recommended that all this data and information should be made public and be easily understandable and accessible, subject to relevant legislation.

Looking ahead, the Tribunal recommended that the Crown strengthen its monitoring regime to enable it to identify, in as close to real time as possible, whether or not its COVID-19 policy settings in relation to Māori were working as expected. This would enable the Crown to change those settings to achieve the desired and intended results and to remain accountable to its Treaty partner.

The Tribunal recommended both the paediatric vaccine and the booster vaccine rollout expressly prioritise Māori and be supported by adequate funding, data, and resourcing for Māori providers.

Finally, the Tribunal recommended that the Crown strengthen its engagement with its Treaty partners. The claimants and the Crown had begun negotiations about a new national collective to assist with coordinating the Māori pandemic response. The Tribunal recommended that any further engagement between Māori and the Crown, with this national collective and with other Māori groups, should give effect to tino rangatiratanga and be broadly representative of Māori. Key Ministers and Crown officials must also be involved.
 

On 6 October 2023, the Waitangi Tribunal released The Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 Inquiry Stage 2 Report in pre-publication format. The inquiry was accorded high priority, reflecting the importance of the customary rights at stake and the immediacy of the Act’s alleged impacts on Māori. The Tribunal received 92 claims for the inquiry, and a further 80 parties were granted interested party status. Hearings were held between September 2020 and November 2021 before an inquiry panel comprising Judge Miharo Armstrong (presiding), Ron Crosby, Professor Rawinia Higgins, and Tā Pou Temara.

This report concludes the two-part inquiry. The first stage considered whether the procedural and resourcing arrangements put in place by the Crown to support the Act were Treaty-compliant and prejudicially affected Māori, whereas the stage 2 report focused on the Treaty compliance of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 itself.

The 2011 Act replaced its controversial predecessor, the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004, and restored customary title interests extinguished under the previous Act, introduced statutory tests and awards whereby customary interests may be identified, and provided for public access. Under the Act, Māori can obtain legal rights recognising their customary interests in the form of customary marine title or protected customary rights. The Act provides two application pathways for this purpose. Māori can apply to the High Court for a recognition order or engage directly with the Crown, or do both. In each pathway, applications for customary rights had to be filed by the statutory deadline of 3 April 2017.

The stage 2 report investigated whether the Act’s foundations, the Act’s mechanisms for recognising claimants’ rights, and the rights available under the Act themselves were Treaty compliant. Overall, the Tribunal found that the rights under the Takutai Moana Act did not sufficiently support Māori in their kaitiakitanga duties and rangatiratanga rights and failed to provide a fair and reasonable balance between Māori rights and other public and private rights. Therefore, the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 was in breach of principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. The claimants had been, and were likely to continue to be, prejudiced by aspects of the Act that breached Treaty principles.

To give effect to Treaty principles, the Tribunal recommended that the Crown make several targeted amendments to the Act based on the claims that had been heard and upheld. Among these were recommendations to improve the statutory test for customary marine title, to repeal the statutory deadline, to allow current applicants to transfer their applications from the High Court to the Māori Land Court, to increase the scope of the Act’s compensation regime, and to decouple the wāhi tapu protection right from the regime of customary marine title.