Search Inquiry Documents

He Whenua Karapotia, He Whenua Ngaro: Priority Report on Landlocked Māori Land in the Taihape Inquiry District is an early outcome of the Taihape: Rangitīkei ki Rangipō district inquiry. The Tribunal reported on landlocking as a matter of priority because it was a pressing issue in the inquiry district; more than 70 per cent of remaining Māori land holdings in Taihape – exceeding 50,000 hectares – were landlocked at the time of inquiry.

The broader Taihape district inquiry encompasses 46 historical claims about Crown actions and omissions in the area known as Inland Pātea, west of the Ruahine ranges and south of the Kaimanawa mountains. Hearings took place from 2016 to 2020. The inquiry panel comprised Justice Layne Harvey (presiding), Dr Paul Hamer, Dr Monty Soutar, and Professor Tā Pou Temara. Sir Douglas Kidd and the late Dr Angela Ballara were former panellists.

He Whenua Karapotia, He Whenua Ngaro considers whether the Crown was responsible for landlocking of Māori land in the inquiry district – which largely occurred between 1886 and 1912 – and has provided adequate remedies for the problem since. It also considers whether localised Crown actions in the 1980s and 1990s compounded access difficulties for some claimants with landlocked land.

On the first issue, the Tribunal concludes that landlocking occurred in Taihape because the Crown did not require the Native Land Court to preserve access to Māori land as it was partitioned. Upon the sale or lease of a partition with road access, therefore, blocks of Māori land lying beyond it usually became landlocked. Although from 1886 Māori could apply for access to their land as it passed through the court (or within five years thereafter), these measures were ineffective because they still gave the court discretion on whether to grant access and required Māori to pay the large cost of creating any access granted. The Tribunal finds that the Crown’s general failure to address the risk of landlocking in its native land legislation before 1912 breached the principles of active protection, partnership, and equity, and the expectation that Māori apply to the court to retain access to their own land, and pay for it, also undermined the Treaty guarantee of ‘full exclusive and undisturbed possession’ of land.

On the second issue, the Crown conceded that its remedies for landlocked Māori land from 1912 to 1975 were ineffective, inequitable, and indirectly discriminated against Māori. During this period, the Native Land Court/Māori Land Court could order retrospective access to landlocked Māori land. But, if the neighbouring land to be crossed had left Māori ownership before 1913, the court had no power to order access or could do so only with the neighbouring owner’s consent. This restriction in the law effectively removed the court’s ability to restore access to landlocked Māori land in Taihape, which had almost entirely become landlocked – as neighbouring land was sold – before 1913. While it accepts the Crown’s concessions, the Tribunal finds that the failure of the Crown’s remedies in this period breached the principle of redress.

The report goes on to conclude that, despite legislative improvements, the Crown’s remedies since 1975 have remained ineffective for Māori with landlocked land in Taihape. The key flaw in these remedies, the report argues, is that they have continued to place the huge cost of restoring access onto the owners of landlocked Māori land. This approach has been not only ineffective but unfair, treating the landowners no differently than owners of general land seeking to access landlocked land they have purchased. The Tribunal finds that the Crown’s failure to provide fair and effective remedies since 1975 breached the principles of equity and redress.

On localised issues, the Tribunal finds that the Crown ignored opportunities to enhance access to some landlocked Māori land in the 1980s and 1990s, when it negotiated better access to its nearby conservation land, and that this failure breached Treaty principles. The Crown also conceded that it breached Treaty principles by failing to consult the owners of neighbouring landlocked Māori land when it acquired certain blocks for defence purposes.

The Tribunal finds that whānau and hapū of the Taihape district have been significantly prejudiced by the lack of ready access to much of their remaining land, which has undermined their opportunities for economic development, their ability to exercise kaitiakitanga, and the intergenerational transmission of mātauranga relating to these lands.

To redress the prejudice caused by its Treaty breaches, the report recommends that the Crown establish a contestable fund to which Māori owners of landlocked land in Taihape can apply to achieve access. The fund would pay for access that may be granted by the Māori Land Court, including any compensation payable to neighbouring landowners. The Tribunal recommends that funds for this purpose should not be taken from the sum set aside to settle the district’s historical claims.

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.

Volume 4 of Te Mana Whatu Ahuru addresses how the rapid alienation of Māori land reflected and fuelled an erosion of the ability of Te Rohe Pōtae Māori to exercise mana whakahaere, or self-government, over the way the district and its inhabitants were managed. An assurance that district leaders would be able to continue exercising mana whakahaere was contained within article 2 of the Treaty of Waitangi guarantee of tino rangatiratanga (self-government, autonomy), as well as the (1883–85) agreements between Te Rohe Pōtae Māori and the Crown, known as Te Ōhākī Tapu, that promised to give effect to the Treaty in the district.

Contrary to these promises, in the years after the Te Ōhākī Tapu agreements, the Crown’s actions, omissions, legislation, and policies designed to develop the area for Pākehā settlement largely stripped Te Rohe Pōtae Māori of their tribal authority. Areas affected included the governance and management of Māori communities, the impact of local government and public works legislation on remaining Māori land, and the management of the natural environment, including waterways.

The Tribunal found that the Crown failed to sustain Te Rohe Pōtae self-government in a Treaty-compliant way. While Te Rohe Pōtae Māori participated in a succession of representative structures and institutions expected to provide them with at least a form of mana whakahaere, these spheres of influence were limited, and many did not prove enduring.

The imposition of Pākehā local government structures further complicated Te Rohe Pōtae Māori’s struggle to retain mana whakahaere, and the Tribunal found that the Crown failed to ensure local government structures would adequately consider Te Rohe Pōtae rights to exercise their mana whakahaere and tino rangatiratanga.

Compulsory taking of Māori land for public works development purposes, which increased markedly after the Te Ōhākī Tapu agreements, was another means through which large tracks of Māori land were alienated, and Te Rohe Pōtae tribal authority diminished as a result. The Tribunal found that without meaningful consultation and without meeting tests of last resort, the Crown undertook the largest takings for public works in New Zealand history in the inquiry district during the twentieth century.

Crown and local authorities’ regulation of the natural environment, including waterways and water bodies, further diminished Te Rohe Pōtae Māori tribal authority over many taonga and sites of significance. Additionally, the Tribunal found Crown regulation and mismanagement of the natural environment likely resulted in significant damage to many of these important sites.

Based on its findings of Treaty breach in these areas, the Tribunal made recommendations to restore or better enable Te Rohe Pōtae Māori mana whakahaere, including by amending the legislative and policy frameworks associated with each area under review, and accounting for identified breaches in any Treaty settlement processes with claimants.

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.