Rapua ngā tuhinga ruku tātari

The Maori Electoral Option Report concerns the exercise by Māori of the Māori electoral option under section 76 of the Electoral Act 1993, by which Māori may elect whether to register on the Māori roll or the general roll. In 1986, the Royal Commission on the Electoral System had noted that:

Although they were not set up for this purpose, the Māori seats have nevertheless come to be regarded by Māori as an important concession to, and the principal expression of, their constitutional position under the Treaty of Waitangi.

The Crown had provided certain funding and services to Māori to assist them to promote the enrolment of their people and to gain an understanding of the nature and implications of the choice they are required to make. The claim, brought by Hare Wakakaraka Puke on behalf of himself and those iwi and other Māori authorities that attended a Māori electoral option hui at Turangawaewae in January 1994, questioned the adequacy of the funding in terms of the Crown's Treaty of Waitangi obligations. The claim was also supported by the National Māori Congress, the New Zealand Māori Council, and the Māori Women's Welfare League.

Urgency was accorded the hearing of this claim as the two-month period during which Māori were required to exercise their electoral option ran from 15 February to 14 April 1994. The report was released on 14 February 1994.

The Tribunal of Professor Gordon Orr (presiding), Brian Corban, Professor Keith Sorrenson, Makarini Temara, Keita Walker, and Hepora Young found that the present level of funding was substantially less than would be reasonably required to meet the Crown's Treaty obligations to protect Māori citizenship rights:

The right of political representation has now been enhanced by the Electoral Act 1993 and the evidence before us strongly suggests that the present rights are highly prized. The Tribunal considers that … if adequate funding is not provided for both a vigorous kanohi ki te kanohi and a targeted mass media programme to ensure that as many Māori as possible are enrolled and exercise an informed choice then Māori will be seriously prejudiced.

The Crown conveyed its decision to the Tribunal on 1 March 1994, stating that Cabinet had declined to follow the recommendations contained in the report. This decision was made after a consideration of the extent and nature of the Crown's involvement in voter education activities as part of the electoral reform process.

The Maori Development Corporation Report of 1993 concerned the proposed sale by the Government of its shares in the Maori Development Corporation. This was the first claim of its kind to come before the Tribunal: it was not about the recovery of land or the desecration of something Māori, and there was no taonga that was obviously the subject of the grievance.

At the request of the claimants – Hohepa Waiti for and on behalf of himself and Te Runanganui o Te Ika Whenua Incorporated, Whatarangi Winiata, and others – the Tribunal granted urgency to the hearing of the claim. This was because the process by which the Crown proposed to divest itself of its shares had already been set in motion at the time the claim was made. The Tribunal comprised Judge Heta Hingston (presiding), John Ingram, Joanne Morris, and Hepora Young, and hearings were held in June and September of 1993. Professor Whatarangi Winiata outlined the claim:

There are two major issues in this claim. The first is the fundamental nature of the Crown's investment from the Treaty perspective, and the effect in Treaty terms of the proposed sale, and Crown withdrawal from the investment … The second is the process by which the sale is being effected. Maori economic interests are closely involved and the process should be one which is consistent with these interests. There should be consultation with the tribes, which there has not been … We seek to stop the sale of the Crown's shareholding, and, we urge the restructuring of Maori Development Corporation to perform the serious purpose of development banking for which it was established.

The Tribunal considered that the Maori Development Corporation was created as a Treaty settlement mechanism for the benefit of all Māori and that the Crown's involvement as the principal shareholder was a vital means of achieving Treaty-based objectives:

In light of our view that the MDC is a Treaty settlement mechanism, we also consider that the proposed sale of the Crown's shares would be inconsistent with the Treaty principle … whereby the Crown must act fairly and impartially towards all Māori. This conclusion rests upon our view that the likely outcome of a sale at this time would advantage a few iwi and disadvantage the majority, thereby creating a new prejudice.

In its report, the Tribunal recommended that the Crown immediately transfer five million shares to the Poutama Trust and that, before it sold the rest of its remaining eight million shares, it devise a sale process, in consultation with Māori, to ensure the continued control of the Māori Development Corporation by pan-Māori interests.

The Ngawha Geothermal Resource Report 1993 was the first Tribunal report concerned with a geothermal resource. The claim, by the trustees of the Parahirahi C1 Maori reservation and the hapu of Ngawha, was filed in response to a joint-venture application by the Bay of Islands Electric Power Board and the Taitokerau Maori Trust Board to use the Ngawha geothermal resource for electricity generation. The claimants feared such development may harm their taonga, the hot springs and pools at Ngawha.

The Springs, indeed the entire underground geothermal resource is a taonga to us. You have heard of its miraculous healing powers and I can confirm in my long experience as Kaitiaki of that taonga that everything that these Kaumatua have told you is the truth. I believe that its healing powers, God-given, are sourced deep within in our Mother Earth. Any interference in that spiritual source is a desecration of our taonga.

Kereama Rankin

Our ancestors [knew] that the heart of Ngawha is underground. They are channels of hot water flowing underground. They knew and believed that it was one taonga, underground and up on the surface of the ground. It has been said the hot pools represent the eye of the taonga. But its heart is in, is within the depths of Mother Earth. If we abuse the very heart the pain will affect the heart, the eyes. It is all one treasure.

Ngatihaua Witehiri

The two main components of the grievance were the acquisition by the Crown of the land and hot springs and the provisions of the Geothermal Act 1953 and the Resource Management Act 1991, which were claimed to be inconsistent with the rights of the claimants under the Treaty of Waitangi.

The Tribunal constituted to hear the claim comprised Professor Gordon Orr (presiding), Sir Hugh Kawharu, Joanne Morris, and William Taylor. The first hearing of the claim took place at Kotahitanga Marae, Kaikohe, in October 1992. The second hearing was held in December, and in January 1993 the Tribunal heard final submissions.

The Tribunal found that the claimants retained ownership and rangatiratanga over the Ngawha hot springs on the one acre vested in the trustees of the Parahirahi C1 Māori reservation. They were also entitled to the return of four acres vested in the Crown as a recreation reserve, since they were an integral part of the springs and were acquired in breach of article 2 of the Treaty of Waitangi.

After a full inquiry, there was no doubt in the Tribunal’s mind that the Ngawha springs had always been a highly valued taonga of the Ngapuhi people, and the Treaty guaranteed to Māori the Crown’s protection of their taonga. The Tribunal recommended that the Crown amend the Resource Management Act 1991 to provide that ‘all persons exercising functions and powers under it, in relation to management the use, development and protection of natural and physical resources, shall act in a manner that is consistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi’.

Claim Wai 212 concerned the mana and tino rangatiratanga of the hapu of Te Ika Whenua over the Rangitaiki, Wheao, and Whirinaki Rivers and their tributaries under article 2 of the Treaty by permitting the Bay of Plenty Electric Power Board and the Rotorua Area Electricity Authority to erect the Aniwhenua and Wheao Dams on the Rangitaiki and Wheao Rivers.

Claim Wai 273 was filed in 1992 by Paul White and related to the Tapuwae 1B and 4 Incorporation. The land under the incorporation was managed under the Maori Affairs Act 1953 and was returned to Maori shareholders, with outstanding debts, in 1982. The claim alleged negligence during the period of Crown management which resulted in the outstanding debts.

In 1993, the claimants filed a notice of discontinuance, and Crown counsel advised that the details of a confidential agreement between the parties constituted a full and final settlement of the claim. The Tribunal therefore closed its inquiry into the matter without making any findings or recommendations. Its report on the matter, signed by Chief Judge Eddie Durie, was issued on 8 March 1993.

In 1993, Sandra Lee and Tuhuru Tainui lodged a claim for themselves and the rangatira Tuhuru and his descendants which endeavoured to establish that a grievance would be caused by the passing of the proposed Ngai Tahu Bill.

In 1992, Hariata Gordon lodged a claim on behalf of herself and Ngati Paoa which concerned the appointment of members to the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission under the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act 1992. The claim alleged that Ngati Paoa, and others that joined the claim, were prejudicially affected by the consultation proposals in the 1992 Act and by a proposed policy of the Minister of Māori Affairs not to consult collectively at a hui, and that the Act and the policy were to that extent inconsistent with the Treaty of Waitangi.

The Tribunal, comprised of Chief Judge Eddie Durie (presiding), Bishop Manuhuia Bennett, and Mary Boyd, recommended that a hui be called, and considered it within the competence of the Ministry of Māori Development for it to call one. They recommended that the hui be directed first to the criteria for appointment and then to the selection of possible candidates.

In June 1991, Archie Taiaroa, on behalf of himself and Māori affiliated to the National Māori Congress, lodged a claim with the Waitangi Tribunal concerning the disposal of surplus New Zealand Railways lands. The Tribunal constituted to hear the claim comprised Judge Eddie Durie (presiding), Professor Gordon Orr, and Georgina Te Heuheu, and it reported on four such cases, Auckland, South Auckland, Wellington and Waikenae.

In 1992, the Crown-Congress Joint Working Party proposed a scheme for the disposal of 3605 square metres of surplus Railways lands at Waikanae. In its Report on Railway Land at Waikanae of 21 December 1992, the Tribunal said that, having heard the party, it was satisfied that the only Māori with an interest in the land were the Ruakohatu Urupa Trustees and that the Crown would not be acting contrary to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi in treating with them.

As old Father Thames is to the Londoner
As the Ganges is sacred to the Indian
As the Jordan is spiritual to the Palestines
So is the Mohaka all these things to Ngati Pahauwera
—Ramon Joe

The Mohaka River Report 1992 was the first report concerning Ngati Kahungunu and the East Coast. It was also one of the first of the Waitangi Tribunal’s ‘rivers reports’. The claim concerned the tino rangatiratanga of Ngāti Pahauwera over the Mohaka River and was brought by the late Ariel Aranui, for himself and on behalf of Ngāti Pahauwera, in January 1990. The claimants said that their tino rangatiratanga over the river, as confirmed and guaranteed in article 2 of the Treaty of Waitangi, had never been relinquished.

The word rangatiratanga is one which Ngati Pahauwera favours. That is the mana, the essential force, that they speak of in respect of their river. That is the spirit of them all and the power, essential force and awe. Their rangatiratanga is the Mohaka River.
—Charlie King

Rangatiratanga of a river as a ‘spiritual, subsistence’ and economic base can be a tremendous heritage and resource. This would have continued for Ngati Pahauwera if the Treaty and its promises had been honoured. However … Government neglect of Maori Sovereignty in terms of Article 2 occurred.

If our rangatiratanga over the river is recognised … we will be able to sustain our life and begin to rebuild a corporate resource base and offer real hope for the development of Ngati Pahauwera people today and for future generations.
—Tureti Moxon

The river claim formed part of a wider claim relating to tribal lands in Hawke’s Bay and Wairarapa. In November 1991, it was severed from that wider claim and accorded urgency by the Tribunal at the request of the claimants because the Planning Tribunal had recommended to the Minister for the Environment that a national water conservation order be placed over the river. The claimants alleged that the making of such an order without their consent would usurp their rangatiratanga and be a breach of the principles of the Treaty.

We always talk about our river, the control of it, and its spirituality. These are the waters of sustenance.

Even though administration of the river and the land has passed into pakeha hands, we retain the control. It is in these treasures (ie the land and the river) that rests the mana. This is what we are fighting for. We know that this is where our salvation is. The control of the river has been our mana from way back. It came from our ancestors and down through the generations.
—Canon Huata

Ngāti Pahauwera’s claim related to the lower reaches of the Mohaka, and they claimed that the river, including its waters, bed, and fisheries, was a taonga of theirs. In particular, they placed great emphasis on the role that the river played in their tribal identity.

The river is a taonga that we as kaitiaki know we have to preserve. Our ancestors taught us to respect the river and if we respected the river, the river looked after us. If the river is desecrated, it will affect the very deep beliefs we have about the river. That is our Taniwha, the life force of the river, our respect for the river.
—Derek Huata

Ngati Pahauwera is at the beginning of the river, at the river mouth here and out to sea. To us, those who stand on the marae, that is the spirit which is upon us. Our sacred mountain, the river of Mohaka, Ngati Pahauwera are the people.

The spirituality of the river, the mana, the sacredness and the authority relates to Ngati Pahauwera solely. The life of the river we do not want interfered with, lest it be lost. It must be left to flow onward, in the way that it did in the days of the elders. If they were here they would be at the river as it flows onward.
—Charlie King

The Mohaka River Tribunal comprised Bill Wilson (presiding), Bishop Manuhuia Bennett, Mary Boyd, Dr Ngapare Hopa, and Georgina Te Heuheu, and hearings were held in Wellington, Mohaka, and Napier between April and June of 1992. There, the claimants argued that the Crown, through legislation (in particular, the Water and Soil Conservation Act 1967), had failed to recognise and give effect to their rangatiratanga over the Mohaka River. They claimed that this legislation was inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty because it failed to recognise tribal authority and to provide appropriate mechanisms for its exercise. The claimants sought a finding that the relevant statutes failed to provide for rangatiratanga, in breach of the Crown’s Treaty obligations, and that new forms of authority for regulating the use of waters and other natural resources should be devised.

The Tribunal released its report in November 1992. In it, the Tribunal found that the Crown’s obligation to protect Māori property to the fullest extent reasonably practicable was crucial to the claim and that, far from doing this, the Crown had actively undermined that interest by promoting legislation and adopting practices which had given little or no recognition to the position of Ngāti Pahauwera. The Tribunal reached the conclusion that the Mohaka River was a taonga of Ngāti Pahauwera when the Treaty was signed and still remained so. Ngāti Pahauwera did not relinquish te tino rangatiratanga over the river, or transfer ownership of its bed or waters. All statutory provisions which assumed that the Crown owned the riverbed and waters, or which conferred exclusive control over the waters on central or local government, were in breach of the Treaty.

We urge Ngati Pahauwera and the Crown, as treaty partners, to enter negotiations as soon as possible as to our recommendations. We are confident that the outcome of such discussions will be an agreement which recognises the legitimate interests in the river of both Ngati Pahauwera and the other citizens of this country and which demonstrates the Treaty of Waitangi can be made to work in a sensible and realistic way in its application to a beautiful river which is both an undoubted taonga of Ngati Pahauwera and a great asset to the country as a whole.
—The Waitangi Tribunal

In reaching its findings, the Tribunal had traversed the issue of the ad medium filum aquae rule, a common-law presumption that would also be argued in other river claims. Ad medium filum aquae holds that the ownership of land adjoining a non-tidal river also includes the ownership of the bed of the river to its mid point. Thus, if the bank of the river is sold, that portion of the riverbed is also sold. The Tribunal distinguished the present claim from the 1962 Court of Appeal decision in Re the Bed of the Whanganui River, and found that the presumption did not apply in this case because the parties to the sale deed would not have intended that the purchase of the land would carry with it the ownership of the adjacent half of the Mohaka riverbed:

In any event the Crown was not entitled to rely on the ad medium filum aquae rule, an English common law presumption which would have been known to few if any settlers in this country in 1851. To rely on such an esoteric rule to acquire a taonga of Ngati Pahauwera without their knowledge would we think have been clearly unjust and in breach of article 2 of the Treaty.

 

In late 1992, the Waitangi Tribunal inquired into several claims concerning a September 1992 settlement between the Crown and Maori on fisheries, commonly known as the Sealords deal. Hearings took place at the end of September and the beginning of October, and the Tribunal, which consisted of Chief Judge Eddie Durie (presiding), Bishop Bennett, Hugh Kawharu, and Joanne Morris, released its report in November.

The fisheries settlement had been hailed as historic. While it was not the only national settlement, it was the first to extinguish claims (the forestry and State Enterprise settlements being steps along the way) and the first to affect all iwi. It was significant too in that, previously, 'first in, first served' applied, while this settlement proposed the allocation of benefits according to a regular plan.

None the less, there were objections. The complaint in this claim was that the Deed of Settlement, or the Crown policy that it proposed, was contrary to the Treaty and prejudicial to the claimants in that it would diminish their rangatiratanga and fishing rights and impose new arrangements that had not been adequately agreed on.

The Court of Appeal, referring to apparently conflicting provisions in the deed, said:

This weakness in the Deed and other aspects of it which are criticised by the appellants could be in part accounted for by input into it from different hands. Certainly it is a most unusual document and, perhaps, even designedly, obscure in some major respects.

The Tribunal considered that the Crown had done well in seeking to provide for Māori interests in commercial fisheries, but that the spirit had become lost in the small print, leading to complaints from Māori:

Most especially it needs to be appreciated that any settlement of this nature has two essential goals, not just to pay off for the past, but also to buy into the future. The Treaty, it must be understood, is primarily concerned with the latter. It is not the extinguishment of rights that is essential but the affirmation of them. Somehow the Deed does not capture this, apart from the preamble, and Māori anxieties were understandable.

The Tribunal concluded that the Crown's Treaty obligations to hapu required any allocation of benefits to be based on principles that were fair. As the Deed stood, these obligations were likely to be compromised; both inconsistently with Treaty principles and in a manner prejudicial to some Māori. The Tribunal therefore recommended that:

that the allocation scheme should not be based on Treaty principles alone, but according to what is tika, or fair, in all the circumstances. This may include Treaty principles but need not be exclusive to them;[and]

that objections should not be referred to this Tribunal, as our jurisdiction is constrained, but should be sent to some court or especially established body that is able to consider all relevant matters.

Despite its controversial aspects, the commercial sea-fisheries agreement was subsequently embodied in the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act 1992. Māori now own some 50 percent of New Zealand's commercial sea fisheries and, in return, have agreed to relinquish future Treaty claims in respect of commercial sea fisheries.