D Stone / C Leauga / J Lewis / K Davis / K Dixon / N R Coates / T N Hauraki / A Sykes / J Bartlett / K Delamere-Ririnui, Joint memorandum of counsel filing second amended statement of claim, 24 Jan 20
Maori Women's claim
Judge P J Savage, Memorandum-Directions of the Deputy Chairperson registering an amended statement of claim, 26 Feb 20
Maori Women's claim
Third amended statement of claim of the Māori Women’s claim, 8 Sep 23 (filed by A Chesnutt / A Castle / D Stone / P Joy / N Coates / T Hauraki / J Judge / A Sykes / K Delamere-Ririnui)
Maori Women's claim
D Stone / C Leauga / J Lewis / K Davis / K Dixon / N R Coates / T N Hauraki / A Sykes / J Bartlett / K Delamere-Ririnui, Second amended statement of claim, 24 Jan 20
Maori Women's claim
A Chesnutt / A Castle / D Stone / P Joy / N Coates / T Hauraki / J Judge / A Sykes / K Delamere-Ririnui (Wai 381), Joint memorandum of counsel filing an amended statement of claim, 8 Sep 23
Maori Women's claim
Memorandum-directions of the Presiding Officer registering amended statement of claim of the Māori Women’s claim, 17 Oct 23
Maori Women's claim
Part Turangi Lands (Ohuana North and Waipapa)
Combined Record of Inquiry for the South Taupo Lands and Lake Taupo claims
Maori Development Corporation Report
Maori Development Corporation claim
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.
Report of the Waitangi Tribunal on the Tuhuru Claim
Tuhuru claim
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.