J Chetham, Affidavit of Juliane Chetham, 4 Apr 25 (filed by K Dixon / H Morrow)
Patuharakeke Hapu Lands and Resources claim
Appendix A: Report by Richard Brent Meade, 'Economic Report for Patuharakeke (Wai 745)', March 2025, 9 Apr 25 (filed by K Dixon / T Talamaivao / T Hartley)
Patuharakeke Hapu Lands and Resources claim
Appendix A: Minutes and presentation slides from hui-a-hapū at Takahiwai on 9 Mar 25, 9 Apr 25 (filed by K Dixon / T Talamaivao / T Hartley)
Patuharakeke Hapu Lands and Resources claim
D A Armstrong, Affidavit of David Anderson Armstrong in support of the Wai 745 resumption application, 9 Apr 25 (filed by K Dixon / T Talamaivao / T Hartley)
Patuharakeke Hapu Lands and Resources claim
R B Meade, Affidavit of Richard Brent Meade in support of the Wai 745 resumption application, 9 Apr 25 (filed by K Dixon / T Talamaivao / T Hartley)
Patuharakeke Hapu Lands and Resources claim
F D Harding, Affidavit of Faye Deborah Harding in support of the Wai 745 resumption application, 9 Apr 25 (filed by K Dixon / T Talamaivao / T Hartley)
Patuharakeke Hapu Lands and Resources claim
Appendix A: Report by David Anderson Armstrong, 'Patuharakeke Te Iwi Trust Board: Section 27B lands', March 2025, 9 Apr 25
Patuharakeke Hapu Lands and Resources claim
Appendix B: Statement of claim of Joanne Midwood, 9 Apr 25 (filed by K Dixon / T Talamaivao / T Hartley)
Patuharakeke Hapu 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 Hapu 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