Rapua ngā tuhinga ruku tātari

On 24 June 2006, on a sunny windless day at Ngahutoitoi marae near Paeroa, the Tribunal presented the Hauraki Report to the assembled claimants. This ceremony, following presentation of the report to the Minister of Maori Affairs, was the culmination of some seven years work, covering 56 claims within the Hauraki Inquiry District.

The report is the largest in the Tribunal’s history and comprises three volumes, 1310 pages in all. The first claims were lodged by the Hauraki Maori Trust Board, constituted under act of parliament in 1988 to represent the 12 main iwi in the district’s complex tribal structure. Subsequently, many of the constituent iwi and hapu lodged separate claims.

The Tribunal appointed to hear the claims were Dame Augusta Wallace, presiding officer, John Kneebone, Professor Wharehuia Milroy, and Dame Evelyn Stokes. To our great regret and sorrow, Dame Evelyn died in August 2005, when the report to which she had made invaluable contributions was near completion. Hearings of claims and evidence began in September 1998 and concluded in November 2002. Assessing the evidence accumulated over four years of hearings, and reporting on the many claims, placed considerable demands on the Tribunal’s resources.

This is the first time that issues relating to gold mining, a central feature of the Hauraki claims, have been considered in depth by the Waitangi Tribunal. The claimants did not argue that gold, separately from land, is a traditional taonga, like pounamu. They owned the land, however, and everything in the land, and they controlled the access to it. The key questions were whether the Crown waited upon the owners’ full and free consent to open the land for mining, and whether the payments to owners for the right of access – the mining cessions or leases negotiated over Coromandel, Thames, Ohinemuri and elsewhere – were fair.

The Tribunal found that in the 1860s the Crown did generally negotiate openly and fairly and that the payments to owners of the annual miner’s rights fees and lease rentals for residential and business sites (rather than a royalty on gold actually extracted), were reasonable. This finding is related to the huge capital costs involved in quartz mining, which could be borne only by companies, as distinct from alluvial mining which can be done by individuals or small groups of miners.

However, the Tribunal found that undue pressure was brought to bear in some cases, especially in Ohinemuri, and that the Crown unilaterally reduced the scale of fees in the 1880s, when the mining industry was in difficulties. Even more seriously, the Crown systematically pursued the purchase of the freehold of land already subject to mining cessions. In 1940, a commision of inquiry found that Maori owners had not been fully advised that sale of the freehold meant that they were no longer entitled to the mining revenue, that the Crown, as holder of the mining leases, had at least a moral obligation to so advise them, and that a substantial ex gratia payment should be made. The Crown has conceded in the Tribunal’s proceedings that this payment should have been made. The Tribunal has welcomed the Crown’s concession and recommended that 1940 recommendation should be implemented ‘fully and in a generous spirit’.

Raupatu, the confiscation of land by the Crown during the wars of the 1860s, was another major issue in Hauraki. The Crown asked the Tribunal to examine the whole question of the war in Waikato and Hauraki, which had not been previously considered by the Tribunal because the Waikato Raupatu Claims Settlement Act 1995 was based upon direct negotiations between Tainui and the Crown. The Tribunal found that responsibility for the renewal of war in 1863 indeed lay largely with Governor Grey and his Ministers, and that the wholesale confiscation of land, including Hauraki land as well as Waikato land, was unwarranted and in breach of the Treaty. Moreover, the Crown has conceded that very little land was subsequently returned to the Hauraki tribes, following earlier inquiries.

The Tribunal has welcomed this concession, because of the seriousness of the injuries to Hauraki iwi by war and raupatu. In relation to the intersecting claims of Tainui and Hauraki over the Maramurua forest, the Tribunal had concluded that the Crown has met its obligations concerning the forest under the 1995 act, and that the forest lands, and other Crown lands in Hauraki, are potentially open to negotiations between Hauraki and the Office of Treaty Settlements in settlement of the Hauraki claims.

The Crown’s systematic purchase of Hauraki lands was a third major aspect of the Hauraki claims. Despite early purchases and confiscation, Hauraki iwi in 1865 still possessed some 80 per cent of their traditional lands. By 1900, they possessed no more than 20 per cent and at the time of hearing only about 2.6 per cent.

This dispossession had been carried out under the mechanisms provided by the Native Land Acts and under legislation which secured the Crown a monopoly right of purchase over most Hauraki land. The tribes did not generally have access to an open market or the opportunity to lease. The Tribunal’s report shows that (contrary to general opinion) the Native Lands Act 1862 was applied in Hauraki, without the two-stage process provided of first granting a tribal title then allowing the community to make considered decisions about multiple uses of the land, including their own farming or forestry enterprises as well as sale and leasing. Subsequent legislation – notably the 1865 and 1873 Acts – were little more than convenient mechanisms to divide the owners and facilitate purchase.

Despite successive governments’ rhetoric that they wished Maori as well as settlers to develop land, Maori aspirations in this regard were persistently frustrated, rather than fostered, by the Native Land Acts. Even after the Stout–Ngata commission in 1907 reported that Hauraki tribes could not afford to sell any more land, the 1909 Act again included mechanisms to facilitate purchase and the Crown launched a further campaign of systematic purchase in the district. The Tribunal has concluded that systematic purchase under the Native Land Acts exceeded even war and raupatu in its far-reaching and damaging consequences to Hauraki Maori.

In this report, and in its earlier report on Tikapa Moana (the Hauraki Gulf), the Tribunal has recognised the enormous importance to Maori of the seas, foreshores and inland waterways. In relation to foreshores and the seabed, the Hauraki Tribunal did not revisit the legal issues reported upon by a previous Tribunal but it did examine the complexity of customary interests in the Thames and Coromandel foreshores. It also concluded that the Crown’s withdrawal of the Native Land Court’s jurisdiction over foreshores after 1872 prejudiced Maori interests.

The Hauraki claims related to many issues which arise in other districts as well: old land claims and pre-emption waiver purchases, Crown purchases before 1865, the purchase of timber, thermal springs, the loss of taonga and wahi tapu, the rating of Maori land, and public works takings. In short, this is one of the most far-ranging and comprehensive reports produced under the Treaty of Waitangi Act.  It will assist in the settlement of the historical claims process generally. Moreover, for the general as well as the academic reader, it modifies existing historical understandings of many of the most important issues in post-1840 New Zealand.

On 24 June 2006, on a sunny windless day at Ngahutoitoi marae near Paeroa, the Tribunal presented the Hauraki Report to the assembled claimants. This ceremony, following presentation of the report to the Minister of Maori Affairs, was the culmination of some seven years work, covering 56 claims within the Hauraki Inquiry District.

The report is the largest in the Tribunal’s history and comprises three volumes, 1310 pages in all. The first claims were lodged by the Hauraki Maori Trust Board, constituted under act of parliament in 1988 to represent the 12 main iwi in the district’s complex tribal structure. Subsequently, many of the constituent iwi and hapu lodged separate claims.

The Tribunal appointed to hear the claims were Dame Augusta Wallace, presiding officer, John Kneebone, Professor Wharehuia Milroy, and Dame Evelyn Stokes. To our great regret and sorrow, Dame Evelyn died in August 2005, when the report to which she had made invaluable contributions was near completion. Hearings of claims and evidence began in September 1998 and concluded in November 2002. Assessing the evidence accumulated over four years of hearings, and reporting on the many claims, placed considerable demands on the Tribunal’s resources.

This is the first time that issues relating to gold mining, a central feature of the Hauraki claims, have been considered in depth by the Waitangi Tribunal. The claimants did not argue that gold, separately from land, is a traditional taonga, like pounamu. They owned the land, however, and everything in the land, and they controlled the access to it. The key questions were whether the Crown waited upon the owners’ full and free consent to open the land for mining, and whether the payments to owners for the right of access – the mining cessions or leases negotiated over Coromandel, Thames, Ohinemuri and elsewhere – were fair.

The Tribunal found that in the 1860s the Crown did generally negotiate openly and fairly and that the payments to owners of the annual miner’s rights fees and lease rentals for residential and business sites (rather than a royalty on gold actually extracted), were reasonable. This finding is related to the huge capital costs involved in quartz mining, which could be borne only by companies, as distinct from alluvial mining which can be done by individuals or small groups of miners.

However, the Tribunal found that undue pressure was brought to bear in some cases, especially in Ohinemuri, and that the Crown unilaterally reduced the scale of fees in the 1880s, when the mining industry was in difficulties. Even more seriously, the Crown systematically pursued the purchase of the freehold of land already subject to mining cessions. In 1940, a commision of inquiry found that Maori owners had not been fully advised that sale of the freehold meant that they were no longer entitled to the mining revenue, that the Crown, as holder of the mining leases, had at least a moral obligation to so advise them, and that a substantial ex gratia payment should be made. The Crown has conceded in the Tribunal’s proceedings that this payment should have been made. The Tribunal has welcomed the Crown’s concession and recommended that 1940 recommendation should be implemented ‘fully and in a generous spirit’.

Raupatu, the confiscation of land by the Crown during the wars of the 1860s, was another major issue in Hauraki. The Crown asked the Tribunal to examine the whole question of the war in Waikato and Hauraki, which had not been previously considered by the Tribunal because the Waikato Raupatu Claims Settlement Act 1995 was based upon direct negotiations between Tainui and the Crown. The Tribunal found that responsibility for the renewal of war in 1863 indeed lay largely with Governor Grey and his Ministers, and that the wholesale confiscation of land, including Hauraki land as well as Waikato land, was unwarranted and in breach of the Treaty. Moreover, the Crown has conceded that very little land was subsequently returned to the Hauraki tribes, following earlier inquiries.

The Tribunal has welcomed this concession, because of the seriousness of the injuries to Hauraki iwi by war and raupatu. In relation to the intersecting claims of Tainui and Hauraki over the Maramurua forest, the Tribunal had concluded that the Crown has met its obligations concerning the forest under the 1995 act, and that the forest lands, and other Crown lands in Hauraki, are potentially open to negotiations between Hauraki and the Office of Treaty Settlements in settlement of the Hauraki claims.

The Crown’s systematic purchase of Hauraki lands was a third major aspect of the Hauraki claims. Despite early purchases and confiscation, Hauraki iwi in 1865 still possessed some 80 per cent of their traditional lands. By 1900, they possessed no more than 20 per cent and at the time of hearing only about 2.6 per cent.

This dispossession had been carried out under the mechanisms provided by the Native Land Acts and under legislation which secured the Crown a monopoly right of purchase over most Hauraki land. The tribes did not generally have access to an open market or the opportunity to lease. The Tribunal’s report shows that (contrary to general opinion) the Native Lands Act 1862 was applied in Hauraki, without the two-stage process provided of first granting a tribal title then allowing the community to make considered decisions about multiple uses of the land, including their own farming or forestry enterprises as well as sale and leasing. Subsequent legislation – notably the 1865 and 1873 Acts – were little more than convenient mechanisms to divide the owners and facilitate purchase.

Despite successive governments’ rhetoric that they wished Maori as well as settlers to develop land, Maori aspirations in this regard were persistently frustrated, rather than fostered, by the Native Land Acts. Even after the Stout–Ngata commission in 1907 reported that Hauraki tribes could not afford to sell any more land, the 1909 Act again included mechanisms to facilitate purchase and the Crown launched a further campaign of systematic purchase in the district. The Tribunal has concluded that systematic purchase under the Native Land Acts exceeded even war and raupatu in its far-reaching and damaging consequences to Hauraki Maori.

In this report, and in its earlier report on Tikapa Moana (the Hauraki Gulf), the Tribunal has recognised the enormous importance to Maori of the seas, foreshores and inland waterways. In relation to foreshores and the seabed, the Hauraki Tribunal did not revisit the legal issues reported upon by a previous Tribunal but it did examine the complexity of customary interests in the Thames and Coromandel foreshores. It also concluded that the Crown’s withdrawal of the Native Land Court’s jurisdiction over foreshores after 1872 prejudiced Maori interests.

The Hauraki claims related to many issues which arise in other districts as well: old land claims and pre-emption waiver purchases, Crown purchases before 1865, the purchase of timber, thermal springs, the loss of taonga and wahi tapu, the rating of Maori land, and public works takings. In short, this is one of the most far-ranging and comprehensive reports produced under the Treaty of Waitangi Act.  It will assist in the settlement of the historical claims process generally. Moreover, for the general as well as the academic reader, it modifies existing historical understandings of many of the most important issues in post-1840 New Zealand.

The report covers 14 individual claims stretching from Dargaville down the West Coast to Muriwai, and from Mangawhai on the East Coast to Riverhead on the Waitemata Harbour. The Tribunal concluded that claimants were prejudiced by numerous breaches around these issues and that several breaches to articles 2 and 3 of the Treaty of Waitangi had occurred. The Tribunal finds that the Ngati Whatua o Kaipara claim (Wai 312), and four other southern Kaipara claims, are well founded. This report also contains a minority opinion from one of the Kaipara Tribunal members, Dr Michael Bassett.

This report concerns a claim about the control and future of wananga in New Zealand, particularly Te Wananga o Aotearoa.

The Haane Manahi VC claim (Wai 893) was filed with the Waitangi Tribunal in 2000 by Arapeta Tahana, the chairperson of the Te Arawa Maori Trust Board. It concerns the downgrading of a recommendation for a Victoria Cross (the highest possible Commonwealth military award for bravery) to a Distinguished Conduct Medal for an act of bravery by Lance-Sergeant Haane Manahi, in action at Takrouna (Tunisia) in 1943. Te Arawa claim that their requests to restore the original VC recommendation have not been handled adequately by the New Zealand Government and that this failure constitutes a breach of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. They seek recommendations that the Crown consult with Te Arawa and present a fully researched and agreed proposal to the Queen for her consideration.

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.

The Waitangi Tribunal released The Waimumu Trust (SILNA) Report on 9 May 2005. The claimants are the beneficiaries of the Waimumu Trust, which administers an area of 4440 hectares of indigenous forested land in central Southland, granted to their ancestors under the South Island Landless Natives Act 1906 (SILNA). The claim is about the Forest Amendment Act 2004, which removed their right to export unsustainably logged timber without compensation. This Act arose from the Crown’s indigenous forests and SILNA policies, which the claimants alleged are in breach of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. They argued that the removal of the power to export (without compensation) would lead to a loss of some $25 million in potential earnings. The claim was heard urgently at Christchurch in October 2004, with closing submissions in Wellington in November of that year.

The main focus of the urgent inquiry was, in the first instance, the claim that the Forests Amendment Act 2004 had removed the power of the claimants to export unsustainably logged timber, without compensation. The claimants argued that sustainable logging was uneconomic and would in any case only yield them $1.66 million. Unsustainable logging over five years would have earned $25.25 million (a difference of $23.59 million). The Tribunal does not consider this part of the claim to be well founded. The valuations were unsatisfactory, and there does not appear to be an export market for the Waimumu Trust’s timber in any case. There has been no breach of the principles of the Treaty, and no prejudice to the claimants, arising from this part of the Forests Amendment Act 2004.

In terms of the domestic market, claimants and the Crown were in broad agreement that the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) has placed strong constraints on the owners’ ability to carry out unsustainable logging. In 2001, the Environment Court accepted the Crown’s contention that the SILNA grants were not in a special category and requiring special treatment. Previously, the Crown considered the SILNA lands to be a special case because they were reserves granted by the Crown in 1906, as partial remedy for its failure to keep its nineteenth-century promises to Ngai Tahu. The Southland District Council also thought at first that the SILNA lands might require special treatment, but this idea had lapsed by the time the Southland District Plan was promulgated. As a result, the RMA is a key constraint on the claimants’ ability to make an economic use of their SILNA lands.

The Forests Amendment Act arose from the Crown’s SILNA and indigenous forest policies, as developed from 1990 to the present day. Parliament’s intention in 1906 was to provide at least a partial remedy for the Crown’s failure to set aside any or adequate reserves for Ngai Tahu in the nineteenth century. The Ngai Tahu Tribunal found that this was not in fact an adequate remedy, and the Crown has settled historical claims relating to these grievances in its Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998. None the less, the Crown began negotiations with SILNA owners in the 1990s on the basis that their lands were a special case; a compensatory award, the intent of which would be defeated by its new indigenous forests policy. The Crown’s change of heart on this point, which the Tribunal thinks influenced both the Environment Court and the District Council, was probably inconsistent with both the historical facts and the principles of the Treaty. The Tribunal reached a preliminary view only on this matter, on the basis of the evidence available to it, as it could not conduct a full hearing of the SILNA claims. The Tribunal is satisfied that its preliminary view is sound and will assist claimants and the Crown.

In 2000, the Minister of Forests proposed to compensate all SILNA owners equally and to ensure that such a policy was consistent with the Treaty. His proposal was rejected, partly on the grounds that the historical evidence showed the SILNA awards to be of a different nature than previously thought in the 1990s. Such historical evidence was then subsequently and hastily commissioned. The Tribunal’s preliminary view is that this policy change was probably in breach of Treaty principles.

In terms of the specific Waimumu Trust claim, the Tribunal found that the Crown’s actions in the 1990s created a legitimate expectation that they would receive compensation as a result of a negotiated settlement. This expectation was created by the Framework Agreement for negotiations, and then strengthened by moratorium payments and the settlements of the Waitutu and Rakiura SILNA forest claims. The latter were settled because they have a high conservation value, and the settlements were calculated on the basis of commercial timber values. The Tribunal found that the Crown abandoned negotiations for compensation without the concurrence of the Waimumu Trust. Instead, it imposed conservation orders under the Nature Heritage Fund (NHF) as the only effective alternative remedy. The NHF payments are calculated on a much lower value than the commercial value of the timber, unlike the Waitutu and Raikura settlements. The Tribunal concluded that the Crown’s change of policy has been unfair to the Waimumu Trust and has breached the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.

Despite this Treaty breach, the claimants have not yet suffered any prejudice. The option of applying to the NHF is still open to them. The Tribunal suggests that the Crown take advantage of this opportunity to review the basis of the NHF payments and ensure a fair outcome for the Waimumu Trust.

At the end of March 2004, the Minister in Charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations and the Minister of Māori Affairs recognised the deed of mandate of the executive council of Nga Kaihautu o Te Arawa to negotiate the settlement of all of Te Arawa’s historical claims. Following that decision, claims concerning the planned settlement negotiations and the recognition of the mandate were filed with the Waitangi Tribunal and the claims were granted urgency. Judge Caren Wickliffe, John Baird, and Gloria Herbert were appointed to hear the claims (with Judge Wickliffe presiding), and a hearing was held in Rotorua in late June 2004. The Te Arawa Mandate Report was released in September 2004.

The report found that the Crown failed to carry out a sufficiently active role in monitoring and scrutinising the Te Arawa mandating process, or in assessing the executive council’s deed of mandate. The Tribunal concluded that issues of representivity and accountability with respect to the executive council had not been thoroughly or fully resolved.

However, the Tribunal stopped short of upholding the claims per se or finding that the Crown acted in breach of the Treaty causing prejudice, since an opportunity remained for matters to be put to right. The Crown had also indicated that it wanted to review the process by which the executive council’s mandate was achieved.

The Tribunal thus suggested that a hui be held of Te Arawa iwi and hapu representatives (elected members of the kaihautu) to debate and vote on issues such as the number of groups to be represented on the executive council, the proportionality of seats across the iwi and hapu, and the question of the degree of accountability of the executive council to the kaihautu.

The Tribunal stated that not only would the Crown be in breach of the Treaty if it made an inadequate response to the Tribunal’s suggested course of action but it would also risk promoting entrenched division within Te Arawa between the executive council and its opponents. Leave was granted to the claimants to return to the Tribunal if the Crown’s response was in fact inadequate.

The Tribunal also made some specific comments about particular iwi and hapu, such as finding that, many years after undertaking to do so, the Crown was both legally and morally obligated to enter into separate negotiations with Ngati Makino. The Tribunal found that this should occur at the same time as the negotiations with the rest of Te Arawa, and that, if Ngati Makino agreed, Waitaha should be invited to join these negotiations.

Finally, the Tribunal noted that claims such as those concerning the Te Arawa mandate would continue to be heard by the Tribunal from time to time. It thus provided some suggested best-practice guidelines which could be used by the Crown and Māori should they wish to develop a Treaty-compliant process for the recognition of mandates to negotiate settlements.

In the months following the release of the Te Arawa Mandate Report in August 2004, several requests for a resumption of the inquiry were made by claimants, on the grounds that the Crown had failed to make an adequate response to the Tribunal's suggestions.

In December 2004, the Tribunal agreed to resume the inquiry. A one day hearing was held on 12 January 2005. The Tribunal reported on the January 2005 hearing in the Te Arawa Mandate Report: Te Wahanga Tuarua, released in March 2005.

The Waitangi Tribunal’s report on Treaty claims around the Turanga (Gisborne) area was formally handed to claimants at Whakato Marae on 30 October 2004.

The Tribunal has ruled that the Crown repeatedly disregarded its own laws in its treatment of Maori from the Turanga area in the nineteenth century. In particular, it found that the execution of unarmed prisoners at Ngatapa Pa in 1868 was one of the worst abuses of law and human rights in New Zealand’s colonial history.

Significantly, it ruled that Maori also breached the Treaty during this period and that there was no justification for the murder of Pakeha settlers and other Maori in the Turanga area by Te Kooti and his followers.

This was the first report to be released under the Tribunal’s ‘new approach’, which heralded a faster approach to the hearing of, and reporting on, historical claims. This approach produced a report in four and a half years – from the first judicial conference held with claimant groups, their lawyers, and the Crown to discuss how the new approach would work practically in Gisborne, through to hearings, and then the writing, editing, and release of the report . This is roughly half the time it has taken in comparable districts using the standard inquiry process. The Tribunal says the two-volume report is the result of an unprecedented degree of cooperation both among the various claimant groups, and between claimants and the Crown.

In Turanga Tangata Turanga Whenua, the Tribunal found that the Crown breached the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi by: attacking a defensive pa at Waerenga a Hika in November 1865; deporting and detaining 123 prisoners on Wharekauri (the Chatham Islands) without charge or trial; executing between 86 and 128 unarmed prisoners at Ngatapa Pa in 1868, again without charge or trial; extracting the cession of 1.195 million acres under duress; and by confiscating, without legal authority, the property rights of hundreds of Turanga Maori ‘alleged’ to be rebels.

Significantly, the Tribunal also found that Te Kooti and his followers breached their own responsibilities as citizens and Treaty partners, when they murdered between 50 and 70 Maori and Pakeha at the settlements of Matawhero, Oweta and Patutahi. Even though the Whakarau (as Te Kooti’s followers were called) were greatly provoked by Crown action, the Tribunal found that ‘the Treaty of Waitangi continued to speak for reasonableness, moderation and an ethical response’.

The report details significant moments from Gisborne’s past. Turanga, as it was then called, was a fully autonomous district until 1865. That autonomy was broken when the Crown laid siege to the defensive pa at Waerenga a Hika, killing 71 defenders in the process. The Tribunal found that the Crown may only turn its guns on its own citizens if they are in rebellion. This, it said, was not the case in Turanga.

Following the surrender of the pa, the Crown imprisoned 113 men and transported them to the Wharekauri (the Chatham Islands). The Tribunal found that since the prisoners never faced charges, and were never convicted of any offence, their imprisonment was unlawful and in breach of the Treaty.

Te Kooti and nearly 300 men, women, and children escaped from Wharekauri. The Whakarau landed at Whareongaonga, south of the Bay of Plenty. Colonial forces tried to re-arrest them, and failed. Te Kooti sought safe passage from Tuhoe and sanctuary from King Tawhiao. When denied both, he attacked the Turanga settlements of Patutahi, Matawhero, and Oweta. Between 50 and 70 Pakeha and Maori were killed by the attackers. The Whakarau retreated to Ngatapa Pa in the interior, where they were besieged by colonial forces. The pa surrendered four days later. Between 86 and 128 unarmed prisoners were executed.

The Tribunal found that there was no justification for the murder of between 50 and 70 settlers and Maori in Turanga:

The Whakarau were entitled to defend themselves against Crown actions which were illegal and in breach of Treaty principle, but they breached their own responsibilities as citizens and Treaty partners in attacking and killing or forcibly detaining unarmed civilian targets.

The Crown was entitled to pursue and punish the perpetrators to the full extent of the law. But the Treaty was breached when Crown forces executed without trial, this large group of unarmed prisoners. According to the Tribunal, the scale of systematic killing at Ngatapa represents one of the worst abuses of law and human rights in New Zealand’s colonial history. Certainly it was the worst ever perpetrated by the Crown. The Crown had to respect and uphold the rule of law. It had to comply with the standards it expected of its own citizens.

Following the attack on Matawhero, 279 Turanga Maori ceded 1.195 million acres to the Crown. The Tribunal found that the cession was made under duress – the Crown had threatened to remove its protection unless the entire district was ceded. This threat was in breach of the Treaty. Nor could the deed extinguish the rights of the majority of Turanga Maori who did not sign the cession at all, the Tribunal found. In 1869, the Poverty Bay Commission was established to punish ‘rebels’ by confiscating their lands, and to return land to ‘loyal’ Maori. The Tribunal found that the commission did not have the power to confiscate land. Nor did the commission comply with applicable nineteenth century standards for fair legal process.

The Native Land Court followed the Poverty Bay commission. The court commenced title investigations in Turanga in 1875, under the new Native Lands Act. The Tribunal found that although Turanga Maori saw the benefit of titles that had been ratified by the Crown; they wanted to make their own title decisions. They opposed the land court because it took that right from them. Alongside this, the Native Lands Act removed from Maori communities, the legal capacity to manage their lands collectively. This meant that the only way Maori could benefit from the new colonial economy was by the sale of individual shares, but the land sale process under the new Act was complex, expensive, and risky for both buyers and sellers. To compound matters the titles that Maori received remained in a form of customary tenure that was far less valuable in the new settler driven market. As a result, prices were significantly discounted. Taken together, these factors meant that Maori sold more land as individuals than they would have sold as a result of a community decision making process, and at far lower overall prices. The promised economic benefits which colonisation would bring to Maori were thus never realised in Turanga.

The Tribunal noted that the peoples of Gisborne have a rich and sometimes dramatic shared history. However, it expressed frustration at the lack of local education programmes to ensure local communities are aware of that history. That, it said, remains a primary obstacle to the process of reconciliation.

The Waitangi Tribunal’s report on Treaty claims around the Turanga (Gisborne) area was formally handed to claimants at Whakato Marae on 30 October 2004.

The Tribunal has ruled that the Crown repeatedly disregarded its own laws in its treatment of Maori from the Turanga area in the nineteenth century. In particular, it found that the execution of unarmed prisoners at Ngatapa Pa in 1868 was one of the worst abuses of law and human rights in New Zealand’s colonial history.

Significantly, it ruled that Maori also breached the Treaty during this period and that there was no justification for the murder of Pakeha settlers and other Maori in the Turanga area by Te Kooti and his followers.

This was the first report to be released under the Tribunal’s ‘new approach’, which heralded a faster approach to the hearing of, and reporting on, historical claims. This approach produced a report in four and a half years – from the first judicial conference held with claimant groups, their lawyers, and the Crown to discuss how the new approach would work practically in Gisborne, through to hearings, and then the writing, editing, and release of the report . This is roughly half the time it has taken in comparable districts using the standard inquiry process. The Tribunal says the two-volume report is the result of an unprecedented degree of cooperation both among the various claimant groups, and between claimants and the Crown.

In Turanga Tangata Turanga Whenua, the Tribunal found that the Crown breached the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi by: attacking a defensive pa at Waerenga a Hika in November 1865; deporting and detaining 123 prisoners on Wharekauri (the Chatham Islands) without charge or trial; executing between 86 and 128 unarmed prisoners at Ngatapa Pa in 1868, again without charge or trial; extracting the cession of 1.195 million acres under duress; and by confiscating, without legal authority, the property rights of hundreds of Turanga Maori ‘alleged’ to be rebels.

Significantly, the Tribunal also found that Te Kooti and his followers breached their own responsibilities as citizens and Treaty partners, when they murdered between 50 and 70 Maori and Pakeha at the settlements of Matawhero, Oweta and Patutahi. Even though the Whakarau (as Te Kooti’s followers were called) were greatly provoked by Crown action, the Tribunal found that ‘the Treaty of Waitangi continued to speak for reasonableness, moderation and an ethical response’.

The report details significant moments from Gisborne’s past. Turanga, as it was then called, was a fully autonomous district until 1865. That autonomy was broken when the Crown laid siege to the defensive pa at Waerenga a Hika, killing 71 defenders in the process. The Tribunal found that the Crown may only turn its guns on its own citizens if they are in rebellion. This, it said, was not the case in Turanga.

Following the surrender of the pa, the Crown imprisoned 113 men and transported them to the Wharekauri (the Chatham Islands). The Tribunal found that since the prisoners never faced charges, and were never convicted of any offence, their imprisonment was unlawful and in breach of the Treaty.

Te Kooti and nearly 300 men, women, and children escaped from Wharekauri. The Whakarau landed at Whareongaonga, south of the Bay of Plenty. Colonial forces tried to re-arrest them, and failed. Te Kooti sought safe passage from Tuhoe and sanctuary from King Tawhiao. When denied both, he attacked the Turanga settlements of Patutahi, Matawhero, and Oweta. Between 50 and 70 Pakeha and Maori were killed by the attackers. The Whakarau retreated to Ngatapa Pa in the interior, where they were besieged by colonial forces. The pa surrendered four days later. Between 86 and 128 unarmed prisoners were executed.

The Tribunal found that there was no justification for the murder of between 50 and 70 settlers and Maori in Turanga:

The Whakarau were entitled to defend themselves against Crown actions which were illegal and in breach of Treaty principle, but they breached their own responsibilities as citizens and Treaty partners in attacking and killing or forcibly detaining unarmed civilian targets.

The Crown was entitled to pursue and punish the perpetrators to the full extent of the law. But the Treaty was breached when Crown forces executed without trial, this large group of unarmed prisoners. According to the Tribunal, the scale of systematic killing at Ngatapa represents one of the worst abuses of law and human rights in New Zealand’s colonial history. Certainly it was the worst ever perpetrated by the Crown. The Crown had to respect and uphold the rule of law. It had to comply with the standards it expected of its own citizens.

Following the attack on Matawhero, 279 Turanga Maori ceded 1.195 million acres to the Crown. The Tribunal found that the cession was made under duress – the Crown had threatened to remove its protection unless the entire district was ceded. This threat was in breach of the Treaty. Nor could the deed extinguish the rights of the majority of Turanga Maori who did not sign the cession at all, the Tribunal found. In 1869, the Poverty Bay Commission was established to punish ‘rebels’ by confiscating their lands, and to return land to ‘loyal’ Maori. The Tribunal found that the commission did not have the power to confiscate land. Nor did the commission comply with applicable nineteenth century standards for fair legal process.

The Native Land Court followed the Poverty Bay commission. The court commenced title investigations in Turanga in 1875, under the new Native Lands Act. The Tribunal found that although Turanga Maori saw the benefit of titles that had been ratified by the Crown; they wanted to make their own title decisions. They opposed the land court because it took that right from them. Alongside this, the Native Lands Act removed from Maori communities, the legal capacity to manage their lands collectively. This meant that the only way Maori could benefit from the new colonial economy was by the sale of individual shares, but the land sale process under the new Act was complex, expensive, and risky for both buyers and sellers. To compound matters the titles that Maori received remained in a form of customary tenure that was far less valuable in the new settler driven market. As a result, prices were significantly discounted. Taken together, these factors meant that Maori sold more land as individuals than they would have sold as a result of a community decision making process, and at far lower overall prices. The promised economic benefits which colonisation would bring to Maori were thus never realised in Turanga.

The Tribunal noted that the peoples of Gisborne have a rich and sometimes dramatic shared history. However, it expressed frustration at the lack of local education programmes to ensure local communities are aware of that history. That, it said, remains a primary obstacle to the process of reconciliation.