Rapua ngā tuhinga ruku tātari

The Ngāpuhi Mandate Inquiry Report was released in pre-publication form on 11 September 2015. It was the outcome of an inquiry into 15 claims, primarily from Ngāpuhi hapū and collectives of hapū, relating to the Crown’s recognition of the Tūhoronuku Independent Mandated Authority (the Tūhoronuku IMA) as having a mandate to enter negotiations to settle the historical claims of all Ngāpuhi.

The hearings, held under urgency, took place at Waitangi in December 2014 and Wellington in March 2015. The panel appointed to hear the claims was comprised of Judge Sarah Reeves (presiding officer), Dr Robyn Anderson, Mr Kihi Ngatai, and Lady Tureiti Moxon.

On 14 February 2014 the Crown officially recognised the Tūhoronuku IMA as having secured a mandate from the people of Ngāpuhi to enter settlement negotiations on their behalf. The claimants alleged that the Crown had pre-determined its decision to give this recognition. They did not support the Tūhoronuku IMA and argued that it undermined the rangatiratanga of their hapū. Of particular concern to the claimants was the inability for hapū to choose not to be represented by the Tūhoronuku IMA. This issue was exacerbated, in their view, by their inability to control who they were represented by within the structure of the Tūhoronuku IMA.

In the report, the Tribunal found that the Crown had not pre-determined its decision recognise the mandate secured by the Tūhoronuku IMA. It stated that the Crown’s involvement in the mandating process was typified by regular, genuine, and high-level engagement over a period of years and that there was ample evidence of the parties engaging in good faith to accommodate differences.

The Tribunal went on to find the strength of hapū autonomy is a defining characteristic of Ngāpuhi. As such, any entity seeking to represent Ngāpuhi in settlement negotiations had to produce clear evidence of hapū support for its mandate. The Crown had a primary Treaty duty to actively protect the rangatiratanga of Ngāpuhi hapū in deciding how and by whom they would be represented in settlement negotiations. The Crown failed in this duty by recognising the mandate of the Tūhoronuku IMA in the absence of clear evidence of hapū support for its mandate. Further, the structure and processes of the Tūhoronuku IMA undermined hapū and their ability to make crucial decisions affecting the settlement of their claims.

The Tribunal identified flaws in the structure and processes of the Tūhoronuku IMA and found the Crown to have breached the Treaty. It did not, however, believe that the Crown should withdraw its recognition of the mandate and require that a new mandate process take place. The Tribunal believed that there was broad support within Ngāpuhi for negotiations towards settlement and that flaws identified in the Tūhoronuku IMA could be remedied. Noting that ‘Strength comes from choice, not from lack of it’ the Tribunal recommended that the Crown halt negotiations with the Tūhoronuku IMA to give Ngāpuhi the opportunity to address the issues it has identified. In particular, the Tribunal considered it vitally important that the hapū of Ngāpuhi have the opportunity to determine whether they wish to continue being represented by the Tūhoronuku IMA.

On Friday 11 March 2016, the Waitangi Tribunal released He Kura Whenua ka Rokohanga: Report on Claims about the Reform of Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 in pre-publication format. The report is the outcome of three claims from Māori landowners.

Marise Lant, the named claimant for Wai 2478, is a former Māori Land Court staffer. Her claim was supported by Te Whānau a Kai. Cletus Maanu Paul, the named claimant for Wai 2480, is the co-chair of the New Zealand Māori Council and the chair of the Mataatua District Māori Council. His claim was made on behalf of the Mataatua District Māori Council and Moewhare. The Wai 2512 claimants were Lorraine Norris, Michael Beazley, William Kapea, Owen Kingi, Ani Taniwha, Justyne Te Tana, Pouri Harris, Vivienne Taueki, and Tamati Reid. They submitted their claim on behalf of a range of hapū from around the North Island.

The Tribunal hearings took place in Wellington from 11 to 13 November 2015 and on 9 December 2015. The panel appointed to hear the claims comprised Ron Crosby (presiding), Miriama Evans, Professor Rawinia Higgins, Professor Sir Hirini Mead, and Dr Grant Phillipson.

In June 2012, the Associate Minister of Māori Affairs appointed an independent review panel to review Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993. After the panel submitted its final report to the Associate Minister in July 2013, the Crown accepted the panel’s recommendations that the 1993 Act should be repealed and replaced by a new legislative regime with owner autonomy as the central focus. After nearly two years of development, the Crown released an exposure draft of the new Bill in May 2015 and invited submissions. The Bill proposed to replace existing protections for landowners exercised by the Māori Land Court with a new regime empowering ‘participating owners’.

In its report, the Tribunal considered both the review and reform process and the provisions of the new Bill, which the Crown intended to introduce to Parliament in March 2016.

The Tribunal found that the Crown would be in breach of Treaty principles if it did not ensure that there was properly-informed, broad-based support from Māori for the new Bill to proceed. Māori landowners, and their whānau, hapū, and iwi, would be prejudiced if the 1993 Act were repealed ‘against their wishes, and without ensuring adequate and appropriate arrangements for all the matters governed by that Act’.

With regard to the provisions of the Bill, the Tribunal noted that Treaty principles do not require any one specific form of protection mechanism, so long as it is effective and has the properly informed, broad-based support of Māori. However, the Tribunal concluded that a number of the Bill’s provisions nullified or weakened the mechanisms intended to ensure the retention of Māori land. That was inconsistent with the Crown’s duty of active protection.

Other aspects of the Bill relating to succession and compulsory dispute resolution, the Tribunal found, were also inconsistent with Treaty principles.

The Tribunal recommended that the Crown avoid prejudice to Māori by engaging further nationally via hui and written submissions, after ensuring that Māori are properly informed by means of empirical research. The Tribunal also made a number of other general and specific recommendations to the Crown concerning both the review and reform process and the new Bill.

The Report on the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, released on 5 May 2016, is the result on an urgent inquiry into a number of claims made by Māori that the Crown has breached the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi in joining the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA).

The TPPA is a free trade agreement between New Zealand and 11 other Pacific Rim countries, including the United States and Japan. The Government negotiated the inclusion of a clause in the TPPA that allows it to take ‘measures it deems necessary to accord more favourable treatment of Māori… including in fulfilment of the Treaty of Waitangi’.

Claimants before the Tribunal said that this ‘Treaty exception clause’ would not protect their Treaty rights, and that the TPPA gave too much power to foreign investors.

The time available to the Tribunal to report was limited, and so it confined its inquiry to two issues:

• Whether the Treaty of Waitangi exception clause is the effective protection of Māori interests it is said to be; and
• What Māori engagement and input is now required over steps needed to ratify the TPPA, including by way of legislation or changes to Government policies which may affect Māori.

The Tribunal found that the exception clause should ‘provide a reasonable degree of protection to Māori interests’. The inclusion of a Treaty clause in the TPPA, and in earlier free trade agreements, was ‘to the credit of successive New Zealand governments’, the Tribunal said.

Nevertheless, the Tribunal expressed concern about the right of foreign investors to bring claims against the New Zealand Government. Under the TPPA, an investor may choose to bring a claim against the country in which they have invested, if it thinks the investment has been damaged by the State. This takes place under a system known as investor–state dispute settlement (ISDS).

An ISDS panel decides the case and can order compensation, although it cannot order the country to change its laws or practices.

The Tribunal was concerned that the right to bring ISDS claims, or the threat or apprehension of them, ‘may have a chilling effect on the Crown’s willingness or ability to meet its Treaty obligations or to adopt otherwise Treaty-consistent measures’.

In addressing its second issue, of what steps the Crown should now take, the Tribunal also looked at the adequacy of the Crown’s consultation with Māori before the TPPA text was completed. It was critical of the process, but made no findings on that topic.

The Tribunal suggested that question of a possible chilling effect, as well as an appropriate Treaty clause for future trade agreements, should be the subject of further dialogue between the Crown and Māori.

The Wai 2522 claim was lodged in June 2015 by Dr Papaarangi Reid, Moana Jackson, Angeline Greensill, Hone Harawira, Rikirangi Gage, and Moana Maniapoto. The claim, together with eight others, was heard by the Tribunal in March 2016. In addition, many Māori from throughout the country were recognised as interested parties in the inquiry.

The Tribunal comprised Judge Michael Doogan (presiding officer), David Cochrane, Tania Simpson, Tā Tāmati Reedy, and Sir Douglas Kidd.

Tū Mai te Rangi! Report on the Crown and Disproportionate Reoffending Rates, published in June 2017, was the outcome of an urgent inquiry into a claim concerning the Crown’s actions and policies to reduce the high and disproportionate rate of Māori criminal reoffending.

The claim was brought by Tom Hemopo, a retired senior probation officer, who alleged the Crown, through the Department of Corrections, had failed to make a long-term commitment to reducing the high rate of Māori reoffending relative to non-Māori.

The Tribunal heard the claim under urgency at its offices in Wellington from 25 to 29 July 2016. The Tribunal consisted of Judge Patrick Savage, Professor Derek Lardelli, Tania Simpson, and Bill Wilson QC.

Though Tū Mai te Rangi! focused specifically on reoffending, the broader imprisonment statistics for Māori in New Zealand formed the backdrop to the claim. At the time of the hearing, Māori constituted about 15 per cent of the national population but more than 50 per cent of the prison muster. The Tribunal noted the disparity between Māori and non-Māori reoffending rates was substantial and contributed to the disproportionate number of Māori in prison. Because of this, the Tribunal said that, for the Crown to be acting consistently with its obligations, it had to be giving urgent priority to addressing disproportionate Māori reoffending rates in clear and convincing ways.

The Tribunal concluded that the Crown, through the Department of Corrections, was not prioritising the reduction of Māori reoffending. It based this conclusion on the fact that since 2013 the Department of Corrections had had no Māori-specific plan or strategy to reduce Māori reoffending rates, no specific target to reduce Māori reoffending rates, and no specific budget to meet that end. The Tribunal therefore found that these Crown omissions breached the Treaty principles of active protection and equity.

The Tribunal further found that the Crown had not breached the principle of partnership, given that the Department of Corrections was making good-faith attempts to engage with iwi and hapū. However, the Tribunal said the Crown risked breaching its partnership obligations in future if it did not live up to its stated commitment to develop its partnerships with Māori.

Among the Tribunal’s recommendations was that the Department of Corrections revise the Māori Advisory Board’s terms of reference to enhance the board’s influence in high-level discussions with the Department of Corrections concerning the protection of Māori interests. It recommended that the department work with the enhanced board to design and implement a new Māori-specific strategic framework and that it set and commit to a Māori-specific target for the department to reduce Māori reoffending rates. Progress towards this target should, the Tribunal said, be regularly and publically reported on. The Tribunal also said the Crown must include a dedicated budget to appropriately resource the new strategic focus.

As the Tribunal was set to release its report, the Crown sought to submit additional evidence relating to a new Justice Sector target to reduce Māori reoffending, and a proposed Justice Sector strategy to meet this target. The Tribunal allowed the new evidence and reported on it in an addendum to the report. It concluded that this evidence did not alter the report’s findings and conclusions.

The Waitangi Tribunal’s Horowhenua: The Muaūpoko Priority Report was released on 30 June 2017. It concerns 30 claims relating to Muaūpoko, an iwi of the lower North Island.

In her letter of transmittal Deputy Chief Judge Caren Fox described Muaūpoko as ‘an ancient, proud, and dignified people who once ranged over an area that reached into the northern end of Manawatū, across the Tararua Ranges, and down into the top of the South Island’. One of their tupuna, Taueki, signed the Treaty of Waitangi in May 1840.

Muaūpoko’s claims are part of the Porirua ki Manawatū district inquiry. The Tribunal heard these claims as a priority in 2015–16, at the request of claimants, in order to provide a report before settlement negotiations were well advanced.

The inquiry panel comprised Deputy Chief Judge Caren Fox (presiding), Emeritus Professor Sir Tamati Reedy, Dr Grant Phillipson, the Honourable Sir Douglas Kidd, and Tania Simpson. The Tribunal convened a two-day Nga Kōrero Tuku Iho hui in February 2014 to hear oral and traditional evidence from the people. Three hearing weeks were held between October and December 2015. The parties made closing submissions in writing between February and May 2016.

Muaūpoko’s claims focused on their lands at Horowhenua and their treasured taonga Lake Horowhenua and the Hōkio Stream. The environmental degradation of the lake and associated waterways was an especially strong grievance for Muaūpoko. Claimant Philip Taueki told the Tribunal that the polluted state of these precious taonga ‘epitomises the Crown’s appalling and disgusting treatment of Mua-Upoko ever since the day Tauheke signed the Treaty of Waitangi’.

Deputy Chief Judge Fox noted that the Crown assisted the Tribunal’s inquiry by making a number of significant concessions of Treaty breach. These included admissions that some legislation and Crown acts have prejudiced Muaūpoko and that Muaūpoko were made virtually landless, in breach of the Treaty.

The Tribunal accepted the Crown concessions and identified several other important Treaty breaches in relation to Muaūpoko’s Horowhenua lands. The Tribunal found that the Native Land Court and the individualisation of tribal land was imposed on Muaūpoko in the 1870s, and that the Crown purchased the Levin township site in the 1880s in a way which was significantly unfair to Muaūpoko. The Tribunal also found that Muaūpoko were subjected to a number of significant Treaty breaches in the 1890s. By the end of the twentieth century, they had been rendered landless.

The Tribunal found serious Treaty breaches in relation to Crown actions and omissions in respect of Lake Horowhenua and the Hōkio Stream. In the early 1900s, the Crown made Lake Horowhenua, the bed of which belonged to Muaūpoko, a public recreation reserve, giving control of it to a domain board. The Tribunal found that this was done without the full agreement of the Muaūpoko owners, and that a series of significant Treaty breaches followed in the way the lake has been controlled and administered, including an inadequate attempt by the Crown to remedy these matters in 1956. The Tribunal also found that the Crown took an unusually active role in respect of Lake Horowhenua and the Hōkio Stream, and that the Crown was complicit in the pollution and environmental degradation of these taonga.

The Tribunal recommended that the Crown negotiate with Muaūpoko a Treaty settlement that will address the harm suffered, and that the settlement include a contemporary Muaūpoko governance structure with responsibility for the administration of the settlement.

The Tribunal further recommended that the Crown legislate as soon as possible for a contemporary Muaūpoko governance structure to act as kaitiaki for Lake Horowhenua and the Hōkio Stream, and associated waters and fisheries. This will require the Crown to undertake detailed negotiations with the Lake Horowhenua Trustees, the lake bed owners, and all of Muaūpoko.

The Tribunal recommended that the Crown provide to the new Lake Horowhenua Muaūpoko governance structure annual appropriations to assist it to meet its kaitiaki obligations in accordance with its legislative obligations.

The Tribunal noted that it had not yet heard the claims of or made recommendations in respect of Ngāti Raukawa and Te Āti Awa/Ngāti Awa ki Kapiti. Those iwi will be heard as part of forthcoming Porirua ki Manawatū hearings.

In October 2015, the Crown recognised the mandate of the Ngātiwai Trust Board to represent Te Iwi o Ngātiwai to negotiate and settle historical Ngātiwai Treaty of Waitangi claims. The Ngātiwai Mandate Inquiry Report is the result of an urgent inquiry into 10 claims concerning the Crown’s recognition of the mandate. The central theme of the claims was that the Crown recognised a mandate based on a one person-one vote process without ascertaining whether the hapū included in the mandate had given their support and consent to the trust board. The inquiry, in other words, concerned hapū tino rangatiratanga.

The Te Urewera Report addresses some 40 Treaty claims lodged between 1987 and 2003 by Māori from iwi and hapu living in the Te Urewera district. The inquiry district stretches inland from Ohope in the Bay of Plenty to just south of Lake Waikaremoana.

The Tribunal panel comprised Judge Patrick Savage (presiding), Ann Parsonson, Tuahine Northover, and Joanne Morris. The panel convened for 11 weeks between November 2003 and February 2005, with hearings held at Waimana, Waiohau, Ruatāhuna, Murupara, Te Whāiti, Waikaremoana, Rangiahua, Ruātoki, and Maungapōhatu.

The report was released in eight volumes.

Volume I begins by examining the tribal landscape of Te Urewera. It describes the hapu and iwi of the inquiry district, their origins and settlement of Te Urewera, and their development over generations leading up to substantial contact with Europeans in the 1860s. It goes on to discuss the Tuhoe ‘constitutional claim’, which concerns the Treaty implications regarding the fact that Tuhoe did not sign the Treaty of Waitangi. It then looks at the confiscation of a large tract of Maori land in the eastern Bay of Plenty and the military expeditions launched by the Crown into Te Urewera from 1869 to 1871, following the alliance of Tuhoe and Ngati Whare with the messianic leader Te Kooti. 

Volume II discusses the Crown’s military operations in the upper Wairoa and Waikaremoana region in 1865 and 1866 before detailing the events leading up to the Crown’s acquisition of over 178,000 acres of customary Māori land to the south east of Lake Waikaremoarana (the ‘four southern blocks’). The volume then examines the development of the council Te Whitu Tekau established by Tuhoe and Ngati Whate, which gave effect to their autonomy following the end of military conflict in the district in 1871, and the Urewera District Native Reserve Act 1896, from which the Crown granted Te Urewera Māori powers of self-government and collective tribal control of their lands.

Volume III reviews claims concerning the Native Land Court and the massive loss of land that took place in the blocks encircling the Urewera District Native Reserve (the ‘rim blocks’) before focusing on how Ngati Haka Patuheuheu lost ownership of their customary land at the Waiohau block through fraud. The volume then considers the claims of Te Whanau a Kai, Te Aitanga a Mahaki, Tuhoe, and Ngati Kahungunu regarding their respective blocks in the Tahora 2 lands.  

Volume IV looks at why the promise of the Urewera District Native Reserve Act 1896 – which was to provide for Tuhoe self-government through a General Committee – was not fulfilled and whether the Crown was to blame for the demise of the reserve and the loss of much of the land it was supposed to protect. It also covers the Urewera Consolidation Scheme, which was designed to consolidate into a single vast block the many interests the Crown had purchased in the Urewera reserve and separate it from the remaining Maori lands.

Volume V examines the impacts that the Crown’s failure to properly implement the Urewera District Native Reserve Act 1896 had on the mana motuhake (autonomy) and mana whenua of the people of Te Urewera. It then describes the painful history of the creation of Te Urewera National Park before discussing the circumstances leading up to the arrest of Tuhoe spiritual leader Rua Kenana Hepetipa.

Volume VI concerns two forms of Crown intervention in the economic opportunities available to the peoples of Te Urewera in the twentieth century: the channelling of State funds into Maori farming and the imposing of blanket restrictions on the logging of native timber on Maori land for the greater part of the period since the 1930s. It goes on to consider a number of grievances specific to the district before detailing the long-running dispute between the Crown and Maori regarding the ownership of Lake Waikaremoana.

Volume VII canvasses the massive environmental changes that have occurred in the district since the 1890s as well as considers a number of discrete claims in four broad categories: claims relating to public works, claims relating to rating, claims relating to cultural property, and claims relating to schools in the district.

Volume VIII concludes the report with the reality of everyday life for Maori in Te Urewera from the 1890s until the Tribunal hearings in the first decade of the twenty-first century and describes the socio-economic effects of the various Crown Treaty breaches identified in the report. The volume also includes the appendixes, glossary, and bibliography.

The Te Urewera Report addresses some 40 Treaty claims lodged between 1987 and 2003 by Māori from iwi and hapu living in the Te Urewera district. The inquiry district stretches inland from Ohope in the Bay of Plenty to just south of Lake Waikaremoana.

The Tribunal panel comprised Judge Patrick Savage (presiding), Ann Parsonson, Tuahine Northover, and Joanne Morris. The panel convened for 11 weeks between November 2003 and February 2005, with hearings held at Waimana, Waiohau, Ruatāhuna, Murupara, Te Whāiti, Waikaremoana, Rangiahua, Ruātoki, and Maungapōhatu.

The report was released in eight volumes.

Volume I begins by examining the tribal landscape of Te Urewera. It describes the hapu and iwi of the inquiry district, their origins and settlement of Te Urewera, and their development over generations leading up to substantial contact with Europeans in the 1860s. It goes on to discuss the Tuhoe ‘constitutional claim’, which concerns the Treaty implications regarding the fact that Tuhoe did not sign the Treaty of Waitangi. It then looks at the confiscation of a large tract of Maori land in the eastern Bay of Plenty and the military expeditions launched by the Crown into Te Urewera from 1869 to 1871, following the alliance of Tuhoe and Ngati Whare with the messianic leader Te Kooti. 

Volume II discusses the Crown’s military operations in the upper Wairoa and Waikaremoana region in 1865 and 1866 before detailing the events leading up to the Crown’s acquisition of over 178,000 acres of customary Māori land to the south east of Lake Waikaremoarana (the ‘four southern blocks’). The volume then examines the development of the council Te Whitu Tekau established by Tuhoe and Ngati Whate, which gave effect to their autonomy following the end of military conflict in the district in 1871, and the Urewera District Native Reserve Act 1896, from which the Crown granted Te Urewera Māori powers of self-government and collective tribal control of their lands.

Volume III reviews claims concerning the Native Land Court and the massive loss of land that took place in the blocks encircling the Urewera District Native Reserve (the ‘rim blocks’) before focusing on how Ngati Haka Patuheuheu lost ownership of their customary land at the Waiohau block through fraud. The volume then considers the claims of Te Whanau a Kai, Te Aitanga a Mahaki, Tuhoe, and Ngati Kahungunu regarding their respective blocks in the Tahora 2 lands.  

Volume IV looks at why the promise of the Urewera District Native Reserve Act 1896 – which was to provide for Tuhoe self-government through a General Committee – was not fulfilled and whether the Crown was to blame for the demise of the reserve and the loss of much of the land it was supposed to protect. It also covers the Urewera Consolidation Scheme, which was designed to consolidate into a single vast block the many interests the Crown had purchased in the Urewera reserve and separate it from the remaining Maori lands.

Volume V examines the impacts that the Crown’s failure to properly implement the Urewera District Native Reserve Act 1896 had on the mana motuhake (autonomy) and mana whenua of the people of Te Urewera. It then describes the painful history of the creation of Te Urewera National Park before discussing the circumstances leading up to the arrest of Tuhoe spiritual leader Rua Kenana Hepetipa.

Volume VI concerns two forms of Crown intervention in the economic opportunities available to the peoples of Te Urewera in the twentieth century: the channelling of State funds into Maori farming and the imposing of blanket restrictions on the logging of native timber on Maori land for the greater part of the period since the 1930s. It goes on to consider a number of grievances specific to the district before detailing the long-running dispute between the Crown and Maori regarding the ownership of Lake Waikaremoana.

Volume VII canvasses the massive environmental changes that have occurred in the district since the 1890s as well as considers a number of discrete claims in four broad categories: claims relating to public works, claims relating to rating, claims relating to cultural property, and claims relating to schools in the district.

Volume VIII concludes the report with the reality of everyday life for Maori in Te Urewera from the 1890s until the Tribunal hearings in the first decade of the twenty-first century and describes the socio-economic effects of the various Crown Treaty breaches identified in the report. The volume also includes the appendixes, glossary, and bibliography.

The Te Urewera Report addresses some 40 Treaty claims lodged between 1987 and 2003 by Māori from iwi and hapu living in the Te Urewera district. The inquiry district stretches inland from Ohope in the Bay of Plenty to just south of Lake Waikaremoana.

The Tribunal panel comprised Judge Patrick Savage (presiding), Ann Parsonson, Tuahine Northover, and Joanne Morris. The panel convened for 11 weeks between November 2003 and February 2005, with hearings held at Waimana, Waiohau, Ruatāhuna, Murupara, Te Whāiti, Waikaremoana, Rangiahua, Ruātoki, and Maungapōhatu.

The report was released in eight volumes.

Volume I begins by examining the tribal landscape of Te Urewera. It describes the hapu and iwi of the inquiry district, their origins and settlement of Te Urewera, and their development over generations leading up to substantial contact with Europeans in the 1860s. It goes on to discuss the Tuhoe ‘constitutional claim’, which concerns the Treaty implications regarding the fact that Tuhoe did not sign the Treaty of Waitangi. It then looks at the confiscation of a large tract of Maori land in the eastern Bay of Plenty and the military expeditions launched by the Crown into Te Urewera from 1869 to 1871, following the alliance of Tuhoe and Ngati Whare with the messianic leader Te Kooti. 

Volume II discusses the Crown’s military operations in the upper Wairoa and Waikaremoana region in 1865 and 1866 before detailing the events leading up to the Crown’s acquisition of over 178,000 acres of customary Māori land to the south east of Lake Waikaremoarana (the ‘four southern blocks’). The volume then examines the development of the council Te Whitu Tekau established by Tuhoe and Ngati Whate, which gave effect to their autonomy following the end of military conflict in the district in 1871, and the Urewera District Native Reserve Act 1896, from which the Crown granted Te Urewera Māori powers of self-government and collective tribal control of their lands.

Volume III reviews claims concerning the Native Land Court and the massive loss of land that took place in the blocks encircling the Urewera District Native Reserve (the ‘rim blocks’) before focusing on how Ngati Haka Patuheuheu lost ownership of their customary land at the Waiohau block through fraud. The volume then considers the claims of Te Whanau a Kai, Te Aitanga a Mahaki, Tuhoe, and Ngati Kahungunu regarding their respective blocks in the Tahora 2 lands.  

Volume IV looks at why the promise of the Urewera District Native Reserve Act 1896 – which was to provide for Tuhoe self-government through a General Committee – was not fulfilled and whether the Crown was to blame for the demise of the reserve and the loss of much of the land it was supposed to protect. It also covers the Urewera Consolidation Scheme, which was designed to consolidate into a single vast block the many interests the Crown had purchased in the Urewera reserve and separate it from the remaining Maori lands.

Volume V examines the impacts that the Crown’s failure to properly implement the Urewera District Native Reserve Act 1896 had on the mana motuhake (autonomy) and mana whenua of the people of Te Urewera. It then describes the painful history of the creation of Te Urewera National Park before discussing the circumstances leading up to the arrest of Tuhoe spiritual leader Rua Kenana Hepetipa.

Volume VI concerns two forms of Crown intervention in the economic opportunities available to the peoples of Te Urewera in the twentieth century: the channelling of State funds into Maori farming and the imposing of blanket restrictions on the logging of native timber on Maori land for the greater part of the period since the 1930s. It goes on to consider a number of grievances specific to the district before detailing the long-running dispute between the Crown and Maori regarding the ownership of Lake Waikaremoana.

Volume VII canvasses the massive environmental changes that have occurred in the district since the 1890s as well as considers a number of discrete claims in four broad categories: claims relating to public works, claims relating to rating, claims relating to cultural property, and claims relating to schools in the district.

Volume VIII concludes the report with the reality of everyday life for Maori in Te Urewera from the 1890s until the Tribunal hearings in the first decade of the twenty-first century and describes the socio-economic effects of the various Crown Treaty breaches identified in the report. The volume also includes the appendixes, glossary, and bibliography.

The Te Urewera Report addresses some 40 Treaty claims lodged between 1987 and 2003 by Māori from iwi and hapu living in the Te Urewera district. The inquiry district stretches inland from Ohope in the Bay of Plenty to just south of Lake Waikaremoana.

The Tribunal panel comprised Judge Patrick Savage (presiding), Ann Parsonson, Tuahine Northover, and Joanne Morris. The panel convened for 11 weeks between November 2003 and February 2005, with hearings held at Waimana, Waiohau, Ruatāhuna, Murupara, Te Whāiti, Waikaremoana, Rangiahua, Ruātoki, and Maungapōhatu.

The report was released in eight volumes.

Volume I begins by examining the tribal landscape of Te Urewera. It describes the hapu and iwi of the inquiry district, their origins and settlement of Te Urewera, and their development over generations leading up to substantial contact with Europeans in the 1860s. It goes on to discuss the Tuhoe ‘constitutional claim’, which concerns the Treaty implications regarding the fact that Tuhoe did not sign the Treaty of Waitangi. It then looks at the confiscation of a large tract of Maori land in the eastern Bay of Plenty and the military expeditions launched by the Crown into Te Urewera from 1869 to 1871, following the alliance of Tuhoe and Ngati Whare with the messianic leader Te Kooti. 

Volume II discusses the Crown’s military operations in the upper Wairoa and Waikaremoana region in 1865 and 1866 before detailing the events leading up to the Crown’s acquisition of over 178,000 acres of customary Māori land to the south east of Lake Waikaremoarana (the ‘four southern blocks’). The volume then examines the development of the council Te Whitu Tekau established by Tuhoe and Ngati Whate, which gave effect to their autonomy following the end of military conflict in the district in 1871, and the Urewera District Native Reserve Act 1896, from which the Crown granted Te Urewera Māori powers of self-government and collective tribal control of their lands.

Volume III reviews claims concerning the Native Land Court and the massive loss of land that took place in the blocks encircling the Urewera District Native Reserve (the ‘rim blocks’) before focusing on how Ngati Haka Patuheuheu lost ownership of their customary land at the Waiohau block through fraud. The volume then considers the claims of Te Whanau a Kai, Te Aitanga a Mahaki, Tuhoe, and Ngati Kahungunu regarding their respective blocks in the Tahora 2 lands.  

Volume IV looks at why the promise of the Urewera District Native Reserve Act 1896 – which was to provide for Tuhoe self-government through a General Committee – was not fulfilled and whether the Crown was to blame for the demise of the reserve and the loss of much of the land it was supposed to protect. It also covers the Urewera Consolidation Scheme, which was designed to consolidate into a single vast block the many interests the Crown had purchased in the Urewera reserve and separate it from the remaining Maori lands.

Volume V examines the impacts that the Crown’s failure to properly implement the Urewera District Native Reserve Act 1896 had on the mana motuhake (autonomy) and mana whenua of the people of Te Urewera. It then describes the painful history of the creation of Te Urewera National Park before discussing the circumstances leading up to the arrest of Tuhoe spiritual leader Rua Kenana Hepetipa.

Volume VI concerns two forms of Crown intervention in the economic opportunities available to the peoples of Te Urewera in the twentieth century: the channelling of State funds into Maori farming and the imposing of blanket restrictions on the logging of native timber on Maori land for the greater part of the period since the 1930s. It goes on to consider a number of grievances specific to the district before detailing the long-running dispute between the Crown and Maori regarding the ownership of Lake Waikaremoana.

Volume VII canvasses the massive environmental changes that have occurred in the district since the 1890s as well as considers a number of discrete claims in four broad categories: claims relating to public works, claims relating to rating, claims relating to cultural property, and claims relating to schools in the district.

Volume VIII concludes the report with the reality of everyday life for Maori in Te Urewera from the 1890s until the Tribunal hearings in the first decade of the twenty-first century and describes the socio-economic effects of the various Crown Treaty breaches identified in the report. The volume also includes the appendixes, glossary, and bibliography.