H Maki-Midwood, Affidavit of Harry Maki-Midwood in support of the Wai 745 remedies application, 9 Apr 25 (filed by K Dixon / T Talamaivao / T Hartley)
Patuharakeke Hapū Lands and Resources claim
Appendix A: Mapbook to support Wai 745 application for resumption of S27B lands, 9 Apr 25 (filed by K Dixon / T Talamaivao / T Hartley)
Patuharakeke Hapū Lands and Resources claim
Amended statement of claim for Wai 745, 9 Apr 25 (filed by K Dixon / T Talamaivao / T Hartley)
Patuharakeke Hapū Lands and Resources claim
Appendix B: Index and appendices to report by Richard Brent Meade, 9 Apr 25 (filed by K Dixon / T Talamaivao / T Hartley)
Patuharakeke Hapū Lands and Resources claim
Appendix A: Index and exhibits to affidavit of Guy Sinclair Gudex and Juliane Kathryn Chetham, 9 Apr 25 (filed by K Dixon / T Talamaivao / T Hartley)
Patuharakeke Hapū Lands and Resources claim
K Dixon / T Talamaivao / T Hartley, Memorandum of counsel filing application for resumption of lands, 9 Apr 25
Patuharakeke Hapū Lands and Resources claim
Memorandum-directions of Deputy Chief Judge C T Coxhead concerning an application for resumption, 24 Apr 25
Patuharakeke Hapū Lands and Resources claim
Memorandum-directions of the Deputy Chairperson registering amended statement of claim, 11 Apr 25
Patuharakeke Hapū Lands and Resources claim
J K Chetham, Brief of evidence of Juliane Kathryn Chetham, 1 Jul 24 (filed by K Dixon / T Talamaivao) (also recorded as Wai 3400, #A72)
Patuharakeke Hapū Lands and Resources claim
The Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act Report
Tikapa Moana (Hauraki Gulf) National Marine Park claim
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