Rapua ngā tuhinga ruku tātari

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

Claims in the Kaipara inquiry fall into three categories:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This report concerns claims about the terms of a settlement offer made to Ngati Awa by the Government.

Two days of hearing for the Paraninihi ki Waitotara Incorporation (PKW) claim regarding changes to the dairy industry were held on 12 and 13 November 2001. The Tribunal's report was released before Christmas 2001.

The claim had four separate aspects to it. The Tribunal did not uphold the the first three points of claim. The Tribunal did not agree that the creation of Fonterra would necessarily cause the relative value of PKW's unimproved land to decrease; did not agree that the rental income from PKW's land necessarily would be of less value; and did not agree that the relative cost of exercising the right of first refusal to buy out perpetual leases would necessarily increase.

However, the Tribunal did uphold the fourth point of claim – that the cost of entering the dairy industry has increased – and recommended that the Government should guarantee a loan to enable PKW to purchase shares to supply Fonterra, so that PKW would be able to enter the dairy industry in an equitable manner.

The Tribunal found this was particularly necessary because the Crown had ignored repeated recommendations from various inquiries and commissions since the confiscation of Taranaki land to provide remedies for the problems created by confiscation, and by the subsequent establishment of perpetual leases of returned lands. The Tribunal considered that the failure to provide such remedies created an even more compelling need for the Crown to do so urgently: 'we regard the wilful and repeated turning of the Crown's face from its Treaty obligations and breaches as a further breach in itself'.

The Tribunal considered that the Crown should have at the very least acted immediately on the recommendations of the Tribunal's 1991 Ngai Tahu Report regarding perpetual leasing and the Māori Reserved Land Act 1955:

having ignored the [1975] Sheehan report, the Crown should, at the very least, have given the matter urgent attention and provided a fulsome remedy when the implications of the finding of the ‘Ngai Tahu Report’ were apparent, and had the strong words in the 1987 judgment of the Court of Appeal been taken to heart.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

   ‘With hindsight, the Moriori claim deserved an early hearing in the Tribunal’s process, for it raised issues at the frontier of our modern government. A just conclusion to recent warfare was an issue squarely before Maori and the Governor when the Treaty of Waitangi was signed, and the issue shed light on a major purpose of the Treaty: to ensure justice for all people.’

    Justice Durie

The raft of issues considered in the Rekohu Report are unique and complex, and a thorough reading of the entire report is necessary to gain a full understanding of the context of the claims and the ensuing recommendations of the Tribunal.

The report looks closely at the period soon after the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840 and the annexation of Rekohu in 1842. Some of the main findings of the Tribunal’s report are that:

The Native Land Court adopted criteria set by the Crown that were inadequate in Treaty terms when it excluded Moriori from ownership of any but the main island, and in that case awarding 97 per cent of the land to Ngati Mutunga and only 3 per cent to Moriori. The Tribunal considered the awards were patently wrong and that Moriori were entitled to at least 50 per cent.

The ancestral right to land was with Moriori. Maori were recent invaders.

The Tribunal did not accept the Crown’s argument that Maori agreed to land tenure reform proposing individual ownership, individual share trading, or Native Land Court control of title devolution and succession.

The Tribunal recommended that compensation is due to Ngati Mutunga for the lasting impact of the Crown’s policy on tenure reform.

The Tribunal has proposed a new indigenous land law for Rekohu which would be the modern equivalent for the customary ethic with land titles held in trust by a runanga (formed along traditional lines) which allocated long-term occupation rights. The Runanga would provide facilities for visiting relatives out of the rents among other things. The Tribunal recommends that the Crown fund a body to promote the development of a new Maori land law specific to the Chathams.

The issue of slavery as a result of the invasion of Rekohu by Ngati Tama and Ngati Mutunga in 1835 was an issue ended in the mainland of New Zealand by 1839. This was not so in Rekohu where it continued for 20 years after annexation without Crown intervention. The Tribunal found that the failure of the Crown to intervene cost Moriori many lives, and prejudiced later land claims

The Tribunal in the Chatham Islands inquiry was also asked to look at a number of contemporary issues including the Tribunal's jurisdiction, the status of Moriori and their right to make claims under the Treaty of Waitangi, health and education, conservation management, fishing, and the ownership of Te Whaanga lagoon.

    ‘The scientific evidence is compelling: Moriori are the same people as Maori but, through isolation, they are unique as a Maori tribe.’

    Waitangi Tribunal

The Ngāti Maniapoto/Ngāti Tama Cross-Claims Settlement Report (2001) is a report on two Ngāti Maniapoto claims (Wai 788 and Wai 800) about the proposed settlement of Ngāti Tama’s historical Treaty claims relating to Taranaki. An urgent hearing to consider these claims was held in Wellington from 26 to 28 February 2001 by a Tribunal consisting of Judge Carrie Wainwright (presiding), the Honourable Dr Michael Bassett, and Professor Wharehuia Milroy.

Wai 788 was lodged in July 1999 by Atiria Takiari and others, while Wai 800 was submitted by Harold Maniapoto and Roy Haar in November 1999. The two sets of claimants worked together, Wai 788 representing Ngāti Maniapoto hapu of the Mokau region and Wai 800 representing wider Ngāti Maniapoto interests. These claims were prompted by settlement negotiations between Ngāti Tama and the Crown, which in turn were a response to the Tribunal’s Taranaki Report. As a result of these negotiations, a heads of agreement for a proposed settlement of Ngāti Tama’s claims was signed in September 1999. This agreement proposed, among other things, to transfer various properties to Ngāti Tama and to provide other forms of recognition of Ngāti Tama’s interests in the north Taranaki–Mokau area.

The Ngāti Maniapoto claimants stated that they had interests in part of the area covered by the Ngāti Tama settlement, and that they would be prejudiced by the provision of redress to Ngāti Tama within that area before Ngāti Maniapoto’s claims had been heard by the Tribunal, or before Ngāti Maniapoto had entered into settlement negotiations with the Crown for its Treaty claims.

In evidence to the Tribunal, the Crown submitted details of revisions to the Ngāti Tama settlement which had been agreed to by Ngāti Tama and the Crown. The Tribunal considered that, by revising the settlement and by giving a number of undertakings intended to allay Ngāti Maniapoto’s concerns about the possible effects of this settlement on their interests, the Crown had conscientiously endeavoured to meet its obligations as a Treaty partner to both Ngāti Tama and Ngāti Maniapoto. The Tribunal noted:

There are serious precedent implications arising from the Wai 788 and Wai 800 claims. If the Tribunal were to take the view that the Crown ought not to deliver redress to any claimant where there are overlapping or cross-claims, the repercussions for the Crown’s settlement policy would be very serious. It would thwart the desire on the part of both the Crown and Māori claimants to achieve closure in respect of their historical Treaty grievances. Indefinite delay to the conclusion of Treaty settlements all around the country is an outcome that this Tribunal seeks to avoid.

The Tribunal made clear that Crown has a responsibility to ensure that negative inferences about Ngāti Maniapoto’s interests are not drawn from the Crown’s recognition of Ngāti Tama’s interests in the settlement. In the Tribunal’s view, the Crown had taken, or had promised to take, appropriate steps to meet this responsibility. The Tribunal was also convinced that, if the revised settlement with Ngāti Tama were to go ahead, the Crown would retain the capacity to provide adequate and appropriate redress to Ngāti Maniapoto when its settlement came to be negotiated.

For these reasons, the Tribunal found that the Crown would not breach Treaty principles by going ahead with the Ngāti Tama settlement on the basis of the revised settlement package. It also made a recommendation in relation to one particular site, Te Kawau Pā, which is on the coast south of Mokau. This site was originally to have been vested in Ngāti Tama as part of its settlement, but the Crown subsequently recognised that, because both Ngāti Tama and Ngāti Maniapoto had strong interests in the site, it would be inappropriate to vest title exclusively in either group. The Tribunal recommended that the status of Te Kawau Pā should remain unchanged for the time being, but that the Crown should take an active role in trying to find a way of recognising the interests of both parties:

We further recommend that the Crown facilitate hui involving Ngāti Maniapoto and Ngāti Tama to discuss the future management and ownership of Te Kawau Pā. If no agreement about the future ownership and management of this site results from such hui, we recommend that the matter be reconsidered when Ngāti Maniapoto negotiate their settlement with the Crown, at which time another attempt should be made to find a way of recognising the interests of both Ngāti Tama and Ngāti Maniapoto in the site, and of including both groups in its ownership and management.

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

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

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

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

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

Claim Wai 789, the Mokai Primary School claim, was brought by Mohi Osborne and Te Aroha Adams and concerned the closure of a sole-charge primary school at Mokai in October 1999.

The claimants alleged that, by closing Mokai Primary School, the Crown failed to protect the tino rangatiratanga and taonga of the hapu of Mokai, and so did not meet its Treaty responsibilities. The school, it was said, was a significant vehicle for the retention and transmission of 'local identity and autonomy - Mokaitanga'. Koti Te Hiko said:

I believe that if we are to retain the ahi ka of Mokaitanga then we need to educate our tamariki here in Mokai. Te ahi ka is within us when we are born but it must be nurtured within Mokai for it to survive. As the future kaumatua and kuia of Mokai the tamariki must walk alongside their parents and grandparents to learn the ways and responsibilities of the people. With the marae being so close there is a natural flow and interaction between what we sometimes call the triangle, this being the marae, the Mokai village and the school.

Mere Wall told the Tribunal that:

This isn't really just about education. This is about who we are. Our identity. This is about our whole being, our wairua, our tinana, our tikanga, our kawa … And it is time for us to stand up, as we are doing, and reclaim that … It comes from an inbuiltness to strive and to fight for who we are. You take away a man's identity, he has no face. You move these tamariki out of Mokai, they have no face. They are faceless out in the world. You keep them here, you give them solid roots and solid foundations, ae they go out to the world and they can face them with a face. So that when people ask them, ‘Ko wai koe?’ ‘Ae ko au,’ and [they] say who they are with pride and with dignity.

The Tribunal constituted to hear the claim was comprised of Joanne Morris (presiding), John Baird, Areta Koopu, and Rangitihi Tahuparae. Urgency was granted, and hearings were held in November 1999 and January 2000. The Tribunal presented its report to the Minister of Māori Affairs and the claimants on 31 March 2000:

Our analysis of the evidence and submissions presented in the claim leads to the conclusion that, despite the Crown's commitment to the goal of improving the education of Māori children, its closure of Mokai Primary School was not undertaken consistently with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. In brief, the "good governance" that is required of the Crown, and that is demonstrated by its attention to protecting taonga and enhancing tino rangatiratanga by reasonable means, was not evident in the chain of events that culminated in the school's closure.

The Tribunal recommended that the school be reopened with more intensive support from the Crown than was available in the past. It also recommended that the Crown clarify its policies and processes for intervening (by closure or other means) in the governance of schools in difficulty:

Although the claim concerned one small primary school that was serving a rural Māori community, we consider that the Treaty arguments and evidence submitted to us, and our analysis of them, raise larger questions about the responsiveness to Māori interests of contemporary Crown education policies.

the Governor will seize a part of the lands of the Tribes who conceal these murderers, and will use them for the purpose of maintaining peace in that part of the country and of providing for the widows and relatives of the murdered people.

New Zealand Gazette

The Ngati Awa Raupatu Report is an abbreviated report, containing no formal recommendations, that was written to support a settlement of claims arising from the Ngati Awa raupatu in the Bay of Plenty, when some 245,000 acres of land were confiscated. The report urges that all historical matters between the Crown and the Ngati Awa runanga and the runanga for Tuwharetoa ki Kawerau be settled.

The Tribunal that heard the claims comprised Chief Judge Eddie T Durie (presiding), Brian Corban, Professor Gordon Orr, Professor Keith Sorrenson, and Keita Walker. There were 12 separate hearings, which spanned almost a year and a half during the course of 1994 and 1995.

The Tribunal found that the confiscation of the Ngati Awa land was contrary to the principles of the Treaty, in that the Treaty did not allow of it and the circumstances did not justify the suspension of the Treaty rights amongst the Ngati Awa people. It emphasised that the land was confiscated not for the murder of a Crown official, as is popularly thought, but for the rebellion arising from alleged resistance when an armed force attempted to effect arrests. However, the Tribunal considered that the resistance was intended not as rebellion, or as opposition to the Government, but to defend against that which appeared to be an invading force, bent on revenge.

In addition, the Tribunal found that far more land was taken than the legislation allowed for, that it was taken from 'innocent' hapu with no involvement in the matters complained of, that a major relocation was involved to place all hapu within ready reach of a military establishment, that the hapu were left with insufficient for their needs, and that social structures were destabilised when all hapu land was locked into a fragmented, personal tenure.

I have seen many of our people today fail to observe even the most simple protocols and customs. I have seen some of our people [trample] over the tikanga that is special to us and has been laid down by our ancestors before us. I have seen our people on some occasions deny that they are Ngati Awa.

Kairau Ngahau

I vividly recall how my mother was always telling me how my grandfather, Merito Hetaraka, felt the shame and worthlessness, as he could not fulfil his duties as a Ngati Hokopu leader to ensure the future well-being of his hapu and iwi, as a result of the loss of the 'control' of our confiscated lands.

Patrick Hudson

The report ends with the Tribunal outlining its views on the issues involved in negotiating a settlement and wishing the Crown and claimants a successful resolution to 'this long outstanding problem'.

In settling the claims, regard should be had to the immediate and long-term social impacts on the Ngati Awa people in taking away their proven developmental capacity. It is also pertinent to compare their lot with that of other major descent groups or iwi. In the twentieth century, tribes that retained land would have the benefit of concessionary land development funding. Many that lost large areas of land would have the benefit of preliminary compensation administered through tribal trust boards. Comparatively, assistance for Ngati Awa has been minimal. They had little land to develop and are amongst the few that received no prior compensation.

The Waitangi Tribunal