Search Inquiry Documents

The Waitangi Tribunal’s Horowhenua: The Muaūpoko Priority Report was released on 30 June 2017. It concerns 30 claims relating to Muaūpoko, an iwi of the lower North Island.

In her letter of transmittal Deputy Chief Judge Caren Fox described Muaūpoko as ‘an ancient, proud, and dignified people who once ranged over an area that reached into the northern end of Manawatū, across the Tararua Ranges, and down into the top of the South Island’. One of their tupuna, Taueki, signed the Treaty of Waitangi in May 1840.

Muaūpoko’s claims are part of the Porirua ki Manawatū district inquiry. The Tribunal heard these claims as a priority in 2015–16, at the request of claimants, in order to provide a report before settlement negotiations were well advanced.

The inquiry panel comprised Deputy Chief Judge Caren Fox (presiding), Emeritus Professor Sir Tamati Reedy, Dr Grant Phillipson, the Honourable Sir Douglas Kidd, and Tania Simpson. The Tribunal convened a two-day Nga Kōrero Tuku Iho hui in February 2014 to hear oral and traditional evidence from the people. Three hearing weeks were held between October and December 2015. The parties made closing submissions in writing between February and May 2016.

Muaūpoko’s claims focused on their lands at Horowhenua and their treasured taonga Lake Horowhenua and the Hōkio Stream. The environmental degradation of the lake and associated waterways was an especially strong grievance for Muaūpoko. Claimant Philip Taueki told the Tribunal that the polluted state of these precious taonga ‘epitomises the Crown’s appalling and disgusting treatment of Mua-Upoko ever since the day Tauheke signed the Treaty of Waitangi’.

Deputy Chief Judge Fox noted that the Crown assisted the Tribunal’s inquiry by making a number of significant concessions of Treaty breach. These included admissions that some legislation and Crown acts have prejudiced Muaūpoko and that Muaūpoko were made virtually landless, in breach of the Treaty.

The Tribunal accepted the Crown concessions and identified several other important Treaty breaches in relation to Muaūpoko’s Horowhenua lands. The Tribunal found that the Native Land Court and the individualisation of tribal land was imposed on Muaūpoko in the 1870s, and that the Crown purchased the Levin township site in the 1880s in a way which was significantly unfair to Muaūpoko. The Tribunal also found that Muaūpoko were subjected to a number of significant Treaty breaches in the 1890s. By the end of the twentieth century, they had been rendered landless.

The Tribunal found serious Treaty breaches in relation to Crown actions and omissions in respect of Lake Horowhenua and the Hōkio Stream. In the early 1900s, the Crown made Lake Horowhenua, the bed of which belonged to Muaūpoko, a public recreation reserve, giving control of it to a domain board. The Tribunal found that this was done without the full agreement of the Muaūpoko owners, and that a series of significant Treaty breaches followed in the way the lake has been controlled and administered, including an inadequate attempt by the Crown to remedy these matters in 1956. The Tribunal also found that the Crown took an unusually active role in respect of Lake Horowhenua and the Hōkio Stream, and that the Crown was complicit in the pollution and environmental degradation of these taonga.

The Tribunal recommended that the Crown negotiate with Muaūpoko a Treaty settlement that will address the harm suffered, and that the settlement include a contemporary Muaūpoko governance structure with responsibility for the administration of the settlement.

The Tribunal further recommended that the Crown legislate as soon as possible for a contemporary Muaūpoko governance structure to act as kaitiaki for Lake Horowhenua and the Hōkio Stream, and associated waters and fisheries. This will require the Crown to undertake detailed negotiations with the Lake Horowhenua Trustees, the lake bed owners, and all of Muaūpoko.

The Tribunal recommended that the Crown provide to the new Lake Horowhenua Muaūpoko governance structure annual appropriations to assist it to meet its kaitiaki obligations in accordance with its legislative obligations.

The Tribunal noted that it had not yet heard the claims of or made recommendations in respect of Ngāti Raukawa and Te Āti Awa/Ngāti Awa ki Kapiti. Those iwi will be heard as part of forthcoming Porirua ki Manawatū hearings.

Tū Mai te Rangi! Report on the Crown and Disproportionate Reoffending Rates, published in June 2017, was the outcome of an urgent inquiry into a claim concerning the Crown’s actions and policies to reduce the high and disproportionate rate of Māori criminal reoffending.

The claim was brought by Tom Hemopo, a retired senior probation officer, who alleged the Crown, through the Department of Corrections, had failed to make a long-term commitment to reducing the high rate of Māori reoffending relative to non-Māori.

The Tribunal heard the claim under urgency at its offices in Wellington from 25 to 29 July 2016. The Tribunal consisted of Judge Patrick Savage, Professor Derek Lardelli, Tania Simpson, and Bill Wilson QC.

Though Tū Mai te Rangi! focused specifically on reoffending, the broader imprisonment statistics for Māori in New Zealand formed the backdrop to the claim. At the time of the hearing, Māori constituted about 15 per cent of the national population but more than 50 per cent of the prison muster. The Tribunal noted the disparity between Māori and non-Māori reoffending rates was substantial and contributed to the disproportionate number of Māori in prison. Because of this, the Tribunal said that, for the Crown to be acting consistently with its obligations, it had to be giving urgent priority to addressing disproportionate Māori reoffending rates in clear and convincing ways.

The Tribunal concluded that the Crown, through the Department of Corrections, was not prioritising the reduction of Māori reoffending. It based this conclusion on the fact that since 2013 the Department of Corrections had had no Māori-specific plan or strategy to reduce Māori reoffending rates, no specific target to reduce Māori reoffending rates, and no specific budget to meet that end. The Tribunal therefore found that these Crown omissions breached the Treaty principles of active protection and equity.

The Tribunal further found that the Crown had not breached the principle of partnership, given that the Department of Corrections was making good-faith attempts to engage with iwi and hapū. However, the Tribunal said the Crown risked breaching its partnership obligations in future if it did not live up to its stated commitment to develop its partnerships with Māori.

Among the Tribunal’s recommendations was that the Department of Corrections revise the Māori Advisory Board’s terms of reference to enhance the board’s influence in high-level discussions with the Department of Corrections concerning the protection of Māori interests. It recommended that the department work with the enhanced board to design and implement a new Māori-specific strategic framework and that it set and commit to a Māori-specific target for the department to reduce Māori reoffending rates. Progress towards this target should, the Tribunal said, be regularly and publically reported on. The Tribunal also said the Crown must include a dedicated budget to appropriately resource the new strategic focus.

As the Tribunal was set to release its report, the Crown sought to submit additional evidence relating to a new Justice Sector target to reduce Māori reoffending, and a proposed Justice Sector strategy to meet this target. The Tribunal allowed the new evidence and reported on it in an addendum to the report. It concluded that this evidence did not alter the report’s findings and conclusions.

The Report on the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, released on 5 May 2016, is the result on an urgent inquiry into a number of claims made by Māori that the Crown has breached the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi in joining the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA).

The TPPA is a free trade agreement between New Zealand and 11 other Pacific Rim countries, including the United States and Japan. The Government negotiated the inclusion of a clause in the TPPA that allows it to take ‘measures it deems necessary to accord more favourable treatment of Māori… including in fulfilment of the Treaty of Waitangi’.

Claimants before the Tribunal said that this ‘Treaty exception clause’ would not protect their Treaty rights, and that the TPPA gave too much power to foreign investors.

The time available to the Tribunal to report was limited, and so it confined its inquiry to two issues:

• Whether the Treaty of Waitangi exception clause is the effective protection of Māori interests it is said to be; and
• What Māori engagement and input is now required over steps needed to ratify the TPPA, including by way of legislation or changes to Government policies which may affect Māori.

The Tribunal found that the exception clause should ‘provide a reasonable degree of protection to Māori interests’. The inclusion of a Treaty clause in the TPPA, and in earlier free trade agreements, was ‘to the credit of successive New Zealand governments’, the Tribunal said.

Nevertheless, the Tribunal expressed concern about the right of foreign investors to bring claims against the New Zealand Government. Under the TPPA, an investor may choose to bring a claim against the country in which they have invested, if it thinks the investment has been damaged by the State. This takes place under a system known as investor–state dispute settlement (ISDS).

An ISDS panel decides the case and can order compensation, although it cannot order the country to change its laws or practices.

The Tribunal was concerned that the right to bring ISDS claims, or the threat or apprehension of them, ‘may have a chilling effect on the Crown’s willingness or ability to meet its Treaty obligations or to adopt otherwise Treaty-consistent measures’.

In addressing its second issue, of what steps the Crown should now take, the Tribunal also looked at the adequacy of the Crown’s consultation with Māori before the TPPA text was completed. It was critical of the process, but made no findings on that topic.

The Tribunal suggested that question of a possible chilling effect, as well as an appropriate Treaty clause for future trade agreements, should be the subject of further dialogue between the Crown and Māori.

The Wai 2522 claim was lodged in June 2015 by Dr Papaarangi Reid, Moana Jackson, Angeline Greensill, Hone Harawira, Rikirangi Gage, and Moana Maniapoto. The claim, together with eight others, was heard by the Tribunal in March 2016. In addition, many Māori from throughout the country were recognised as interested parties in the inquiry.

The Tribunal comprised Judge Michael Doogan (presiding officer), David Cochrane, Tania Simpson, Tā Tāmati Reedy, and Sir Douglas Kidd.

On Friday 11 March 2016, the Waitangi Tribunal released He Kura Whenua ka Rokohanga: Report on Claims about the Reform of Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 in pre-publication format. The report is the outcome of three claims from Māori landowners.

Marise Lant, the named claimant for Wai 2478, is a former Māori Land Court staffer. Her claim was supported by Te Whānau a Kai. Cletus Maanu Paul, the named claimant for Wai 2480, is the co-chair of the New Zealand Māori Council and the chair of the Mataatua District Māori Council. His claim was made on behalf of the Mataatua District Māori Council and Moewhare. The Wai 2512 claimants were Lorraine Norris, Michael Beazley, William Kapea, Owen Kingi, Ani Taniwha, Justyne Te Tana, Pouri Harris, Vivienne Taueki, and Tamati Reid. They submitted their claim on behalf of a range of hapū from around the North Island.

The Tribunal hearings took place in Wellington from 11 to 13 November 2015 and on 9 December 2015. The panel appointed to hear the claims comprised Ron Crosby (presiding), Miriama Evans, Professor Rawinia Higgins, Professor Sir Hirini Mead, and Dr Grant Phillipson.

In June 2012, the Associate Minister of Māori Affairs appointed an independent review panel to review Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993. After the panel submitted its final report to the Associate Minister in July 2013, the Crown accepted the panel’s recommendations that the 1993 Act should be repealed and replaced by a new legislative regime with owner autonomy as the central focus. After nearly two years of development, the Crown released an exposure draft of the new Bill in May 2015 and invited submissions. The Bill proposed to replace existing protections for landowners exercised by the Māori Land Court with a new regime empowering ‘participating owners’.

In its report, the Tribunal considered both the review and reform process and the provisions of the new Bill, which the Crown intended to introduce to Parliament in March 2016.

The Tribunal found that the Crown would be in breach of Treaty principles if it did not ensure that there was properly-informed, broad-based support from Māori for the new Bill to proceed. Māori landowners, and their whānau, hapū, and iwi, would be prejudiced if the 1993 Act were repealed ‘against their wishes, and without ensuring adequate and appropriate arrangements for all the matters governed by that Act’.

With regard to the provisions of the Bill, the Tribunal noted that Treaty principles do not require any one specific form of protection mechanism, so long as it is effective and has the properly informed, broad-based support of Māori. However, the Tribunal concluded that a number of the Bill’s provisions nullified or weakened the mechanisms intended to ensure the retention of Māori land. That was inconsistent with the Crown’s duty of active protection.

Other aspects of the Bill relating to succession and compulsory dispute resolution, the Tribunal found, were also inconsistent with Treaty principles.

The Tribunal recommended that the Crown avoid prejudice to Māori by engaging further nationally via hui and written submissions, after ensuring that Māori are properly informed by means of empirical research. The Tribunal also made a number of other general and specific recommendations to the Crown concerning both the review and reform process and the new Bill.

The Ngāpuhi Mandate Inquiry Report was released in pre-publication form on 11 September 2015. It was the outcome of an inquiry into 15 claims, primarily from Ngāpuhi hapū and collectives of hapū, relating to the Crown’s recognition of the Tūhoronuku Independent Mandated Authority (the Tūhoronuku IMA) as having a mandate to enter negotiations to settle the historical claims of all Ngāpuhi.

The hearings, held under urgency, took place at Waitangi in December 2014 and Wellington in March 2015. The panel appointed to hear the claims was comprised of Judge Sarah Reeves (presiding officer), Dr Robyn Anderson, Mr Kihi Ngatai, and Lady Tureiti Moxon.

On 14 February 2014 the Crown officially recognised the Tūhoronuku IMA as having secured a mandate from the people of Ngāpuhi to enter settlement negotiations on their behalf. The claimants alleged that the Crown had pre-determined its decision to give this recognition. They did not support the Tūhoronuku IMA and argued that it undermined the rangatiratanga of their hapū. Of particular concern to the claimants was the inability for hapū to choose not to be represented by the Tūhoronuku IMA. This issue was exacerbated, in their view, by their inability to control who they were represented by within the structure of the Tūhoronuku IMA.

In the report, the Tribunal found that the Crown had not pre-determined its decision recognise the mandate secured by the Tūhoronuku IMA. It stated that the Crown’s involvement in the mandating process was typified by regular, genuine, and high-level engagement over a period of years and that there was ample evidence of the parties engaging in good faith to accommodate differences.

The Tribunal went on to find the strength of hapū autonomy is a defining characteristic of Ngāpuhi. As such, any entity seeking to represent Ngāpuhi in settlement negotiations had to produce clear evidence of hapū support for its mandate. The Crown had a primary Treaty duty to actively protect the rangatiratanga of Ngāpuhi hapū in deciding how and by whom they would be represented in settlement negotiations. The Crown failed in this duty by recognising the mandate of the Tūhoronuku IMA in the absence of clear evidence of hapū support for its mandate. Further, the structure and processes of the Tūhoronuku IMA undermined hapū and their ability to make crucial decisions affecting the settlement of their claims.

The Tribunal identified flaws in the structure and processes of the Tūhoronuku IMA and found the Crown to have breached the Treaty. It did not, however, believe that the Crown should withdraw its recognition of the mandate and require that a new mandate process take place. The Tribunal believed that there was broad support within Ngāpuhi for negotiations towards settlement and that flaws identified in the Tūhoronuku IMA could be remedied. Noting that ‘Strength comes from choice, not from lack of it’ the Tribunal recommended that the Crown halt negotiations with the Tūhoronuku IMA to give Ngāpuhi the opportunity to address the issues it has identified. In particular, the Tribunal considered it vitally important that the hapū of Ngāpuhi have the opportunity to determine whether they wish to continue being represented by the Tūhoronuku IMA.

Whaia Te Mana Motuhake/In Pursuit of Mana Motuhake: Report on the Māori Community Development  Act Claim, released on 5 December 2014, is the outcome of Wai 2417, a claim brought by the co-chairs of the New Zealand Māori Council and representatives of district Māori councils.
The claim focused on two issues: the Crown’s ongoing review of the Māori Community Development Act 1962 and the Crown’s role in the development and administration of the Māori wardens project, launched in 2007.
The Tribunal held an urgent hearing at Pipitea Marae in Wellington from 18 to 20 March 2014. The panel appointed to hear the claims comprised Deputy Chief Judge Caren Fox (presiding), Ron Crosby, Miriama Evans, Sir Hīrini Moko Mead, and Tania Simpson.
The Māori Community Development Act governs the New Zealand Māori Council, the district Māori councils, and Māori wardens. In 2009, the Minister of Māori Affairs instructed Te Puni Kōkiri / the Ministry of Māori Development to carry out a review of the Act. A report by the Māori Affairs select committee in 2010 recommended changes to the Act but advised that extensive consultation should be carried out with Māori before any proposed reforms were introduced.
In 2013, Te Puni Kōkiri decided to proceed with consultation hui on the 1962 Act, despite the objections of the newly appointed New Zealand Māori Council that it should be allowed to lead the review into its legislation. The Tribunal found that Te Puni Kōkiri’s decision to continue consultations in September 2013 was in contravention of Treaty principles.
The Tribunal also looked at the Crown’s development and administration of the Māori wardens project. The project, launched in 2007, provides funding, training, vehicles, and uniforms to support the voluntary community work of Māori wardens.
Originally, an advisory group and then a governance board provided Māori community oversight of the project, but since early 2011 this critical supervision has been absent. The Tribunal found this lack of provision for Māori community input breached the principles of the Treaty.
The Tribunal recommended that any future review of the Māori Community Development Act be led by Māori – specifically the New Zealand Māori Council – and that all reasonable costs flowing from the review and consultation process should be met by the Crown. Once the council had developed its own proposals for legislative reform and carried out extensive consultation with Māori communities, then it and the Crown should collaborate to reach a negotiated agreement.
The Tribunal further recommended that the Māori wardens project continue but that an interim advisory group or governance board be appointed from among the New Zealand Māori Council and Māori wardens to provide Māori community oversight of the funding, training, and other support delivered under the project.
 

He Whakaputanga me te Tiriti: The Declaration and the Treaty is the Tribunal's report on stage 1 of the Wai 1040 Te Paparahi o te Raki inquiry. This inquiry encompasses all territories north of Auckland that have not been the subject of previous Waitangi Tribunal historical reports.

The report is concerned solely with addressing the meaning and effect of:

• he Whakaputanga o te Rangatiratanga o Nu Tireni, and the Declaration of Independence of New Zealand; and

• te Tiriti o Waitangi, and the Treaty of Waitangi, at the time of the first signings in February 1840.

The Tribunal panel for the inquiry was made up of Judge Craig Coxhead, Joanne Morris, Kihi Ngatai, Professor Ranginui Walker, Keita Walker, and Professor Richard Hill. Keita Walker attended the Tribunal's five hearings, convened between May 2010 and February 2011, but was unable to take part in deliberations for the report and so did not sign it.

This Tribunal panel was the first to have had the opportunity to hear and test the full range of evidence about the Treaty's meaning and effect in February 1840.

Based on that evidence, the Tribunal's view is that the agreement reached at Waitangi, Mangungu, and Waimate in February 1840 is to be found in what the signatory rangatira were prepared to agree to, based on the proposals that William Hobson and his agents made to them by reading Te Tiriti, and explaining the proposed agreement, and on the assurances that the rangatira sought and received.

The Tribunal's essential conclusion is that

in February 1840 the rangatira who signed te Tiriti did not cede their sovereignty. That is, they did not cede their authority to make and enforce law over their people or their territories. Rather, they agreed to share power and authority with the Governor. They agreed to a relationship: one in which they and Hobson were to be equal - equal while having different roles and different spheres of influence. In essence, rangatira retained their authority over their hapu and territories, while Hobson was given authority to control Pākehā.

In reaching this conclusion, the Tribunal does not make any findings in respect of claims or make any recommendations to the Crown. It makes no conclusions about the sovereignty that the Crown exercises today or about how the Treaty relationship should operate in a modern context. These are all matters which may be addressed in stage 2 of the Tribunal's inquiry.

The Final Report on the MV Rena and Motiti Island Claims, originally released in pre-publication format in November 2014, is the outcome of two claims: Wai 2293 from the Ngāi Te Hapū Incorporated Society and Wai 2291 from the Motiti Rohe Moana Trust and the Mataatua District Māori Council. Both claims related to alleged Crown conduct in relation to the removal of the MV Rena from Otaiti (Astrolabe Reef) near Motiti Island.

The Tribunal held an urgent hearing in Tauranga from 30 June to 2 July 2014. The panel appointed to hear the claims comprised Judge Sarah Reeves (presiding), Ron Crosby, the Honourable Sir Douglas Kidd, and Professor Sir Tamati Reedy.

In October 2012, the Crown signed three deeds with the Rena owners to settle its claims for $27.6 million. The Tribunal’s final report focuses on the Crown’s conduct in entering one of those deeds, the wreck removal deed, which obliged the Crown to consider, in good faith, supporting an application by the owners for resource consent to leave the wreck on the reef. Such an application was lodged on behalf of the Rena owners in May 2014.

In the report, the Tribunal found that the obligations the Crown incurred under the wreck removal deed placed the Rena owners in a special position in the resource consent process in a way that had the potential to significantly affect Māori interests in Otaiti. Further, the Tribunal found that the Crown had signed the deed without having sufficient knowledge of Māori interests in the reef and without having consulted Māori, despite it being both practical and necessary for it to have done so.

The Tribunal considered that the Crown, by opting in August 2014 to partially oppose the Rena owners’ resource consent application, avoided the primary prejudice that could have arisen from its conduct in entering the wreck removal deed. However, the Tribunal also found that the Crown’s conduct diminished the Treaty partnership to the detriment of Māori and so prejudicially affected the claimants.

The Tribunal therefore found that the Crown’s conduct in entering the wreck removal deed without having consulted Māori breached the Treaty principles of partnership and mutual benefit. The Crown failed in its duty to act reasonably, honourably, and in good faith. The Tribunal made recommendations designed to remedy the prejudice that this caused the claimants.

The Tribunal’s final report followed an interim report released in July 2014 in anticipation of an all-of-government response to the owners’ resource consent application. In that report, the Tribunal found that the Crown’s consultation process with Māori as it prepared to decide its position on the owners’ resource consent application had breached the principles of good faith and partnership. The Tribunal’s interim report is included as an appendix to its final report.

The Mangatū Remedies Report, released in June 2014, is the outcome of applications for remedies by four claimant groups from Tūranganui-a-Kiwa (Gisborne). These groups – the Mangatū Incorporation (Wai 1489), Te Aitanga a Māhaki and Affiliates (Wai 274 and Wai 283), Ngā Ariki Kaipūtahi (Wai 499, Wai 507, and Wai 874), and Te Whānau a Kai (Wai 892) – asked the Tribunal to use its potentially binding powers to require the Crown to return to them all or part of the Mangatū Crown forest licensed lands within the Tūranga inquiry district.

The Tribunal held its inquiry into the historical claims of Tūranga Māori between 2001 and 2002. In 2004, the Tribunal released Turanga Tangata Turanga Whenua: The Report on the Turanganui a Kiwa Claims. The Tribunal found that all of the iwi and hapū groups who had appeared before it had been prejudicially affected by wide-ranging Treaty breaches deriving from Crown conduct and policies in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The Tribunal noted especially the substantial loss of life and land suffered by Tūranga Māori.

The Mangatū Incorporation filed an application for an urgent remedies inquiry on 31 July 2008, seeking return of 8,522 acres of land in the Mangatū 1 block purchased by the Crown in 1961 for afforestation purposes. The Incorporation sought an urgent inquiry because an Agreement in Principle was expected to be signed by the Crown and Tūranga Māori in August 2008, the result of settlement negotiations that had commenced shortly after the release of the Tribunal’s Tūranga report. That agreement proposed the return of the Mangatū Crown forest licensed lands to the wider hapū grouping as commercial redress, including the land purchased from the Incorporation in 1961. The Incorporation, however, considered that the 1961 land should be returned to the Incorporation owners, and asked the Tribunal to use its binding powers to do so.

The Tribunal initially declined the Incorporation’s application for an urgent hearing. However, the Incorporation sought judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision and, on 19 May 2011, the Supreme Court directed the Tribunal to hear the Mangatū Incorporation remedies application urgently. Following this, the three other applicants – who represent the claims of hapū and iwi involved in the original Tūranga district inquiry – also lodged applications for binding recommendations.

The panel members for the Mangatū remedies hearing were Judge Stephanie Milroy (presiding officer), Tim Castle, Wharehuia Milroy, and Dr Ann Parsonson. Two weeks of hearings were held in Gisborne in June and October 2012. Closing submissions of the parties were heard in November 2012 in Wellington.

The Tribunal found that all four applicants had well-founded claims that were deserving of redress. However, the Tribunal did not consider that binding recommendations were appropriate in the circumstances and so declined to make the recommendations sought. In particular, it could not be certain that binding recommendations would provide redress proportionate to the prejudice suffered by the claimants. As a result, the Tribunal was unable to make recommendations that would be fair and equitable between the four groups. The Tribunal was concerned that redress which seemed to favour one group over others would risk creating fresh grievances, and might undermine the chances of achieving a durable Treaty settlement of the claims.

The Tribunal strongly urged all the applicants to reunite and return to settlement negotiations with the Crown. The Tribunal reiterated its preference that redress for well-founded claims should be negotiated with the Crown. In the report, the Tribunal said: ‘Any compromises that are made, and all settlements require compromises, should be made by the hapū and iwi involved – they are the ones with the mana and rangatiratanga to make such agreements, not the Tribunal.’ It emphasised that negotiations allow all parties much more flexibility than binding recommendations to develop a satisfactory settlement package.