Rapua ngā tuhinga ruku tātari

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.
 

On Monday 10 October 2005, the Waitangi Tribunal released its report on certain policies and procedures used by the Department of Corrections in relation to the assessment of offenders. The Offender Assessment Policies Report considered two specific assessment tools (tests) that were designed and used by the department. The tools helped to identify and assess offenders who were at high risk of reoffending, and were intended to assist the development of programmes that could work towards reducing Māori reoffending.

Claimant Tom Hemopo, on behalf of Ngati Kahungunu, claimed that the assessment tools disadvantaged Maori offenders in terms of the type and length of sentences they received. He also alleged deficiencies in the department's consultation with Māori, and in the design, implementation, and use of the tools.

The Tribunal concluded that there was insufficient evidence to establish that any prejudice had been or was being caused to Māori offenders. The Tribunal recognised that the department had acted in good faith in order to reduce reoffending and believed that some aspects of the assessment tools were ground-breaking.

Nevertheless, it believed that the 'MaCRNs' tool, which focused on Māori offenders' cultural responsiveness, required more testing and independent evaluation. The Tribunal also identified Treaty breaches in the way that the department had developed that tool without consulting Māori communities, and in its monitoring of the tool's use and effects. It considered that Māori communities, including Ngati Kahungunu, had significant interests in the goal of reducing Māori offending and in using Māori culture to help achieve that goal, and the Tribunal thought that the department's responses to Māori reoffending should be developed and monitored in a manner that was consistent with those interests.

In its summing up, the Tribunal said that it believed the parties might not be far apart in finding a way forward that built on the important work that had already been done.

This report concerns a claim about the Government's proposed settlement with Ngati Tuwharetoa ki Kawerau.

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

The Wai 953 claimants represent Ngati Kahungunu, Ngati Whatua, Te Atiawa ki te Tau Ihu, Ngati Koata, Ngai Tahu, and Ngati Kuia. They claim to have a broad relationship with the coastal marine area and that as an incident of that relationship they have an interest in aquaculture, or more particularly marine farming.

The Tribunal was assisted by submissions from Te Ohu Kaimoana and the New Zealand Marine Farming Association.

The claimants alleged that they had been prejudicially affected by the proposals of the crown to reform the laws regulating aquaculture and in particular marine farming in New Zealand. They allege that these Crown actions amount to acts, policies, and practices in breach of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.

The Tribunal's focus during the inquiry was on the proposals for reform and not on the existing aquaculture regime. The concern was the discrete question of whether the proposed reforms were in breach of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. We also considered whether attempts made by the Crown, subsequent to the filing of these claims, addressed Maori issues adequately so as to discharge the Crown's duty actively to protect Maori interests.

In summary, this report found that Māori have an interest in marine farming that forms part of the bundle of Maori rights in the coastal marine area that represent a taonga protected by the Treaty of Waitangi. The Tribunal found that the proposed reforms do breach the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and the reasons for this are explained in chapter 6 and 7 of the report. The Tribunal also found that further consultation with Māori is needed to ascertain what should be done to ensure that their Treaty interests are adequately provided for. To facilitate this process the Tribunal recommended that the delay before the introduction of the Bill should be used by the Crown to establish a mechanism (resourced by the Crown) for consultation and negotiation with Māori including the claimants, facilitated by Te Ohu Kai Moana. The basis of consultation should be the existence of Treaty rights in the coastal space, which include rights, the extent of which are yet to be determined, to aquaculture and marine farming.

The parties should use the mechanism to discuss:

-a process for investigating the nature and extent of the Māori interest in marine farming;
-a process for agreeing on the mechanism needed to protect the Māori interest in marine farming, including a mechanism for preserving capacity to intervene once the full nature and and extent of that interest is defined;
-a process for ensuring appropriate Māori participation in the development of AMA areas and tendering process;
-a mechanism for preserving the Crown's capacity to meet its Treaty obligations in the short term, until such time as the longer planning issues are dealt with.

The Tribunal found that since the claims are well-founded, the recommendation is for payment by the Crown of the claimants' reasonable costs and expenses.

The Tribunal also indicated that the claimants have leave without further application for urgency, to return to the Tribunal should they have concerns that these matters have not been addressed properly after any legislation has been enacted.

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.