Rapua ngā tuhinga ruku tātari

In June 1991, Archie Taiaroa, on behalf of himself and Māori affiliated to the National Māori Congress, lodged a claim with the Waitangi Tribunal concerning the disposal of surplus New Zealand Railways lands. The Tribunal constituted to hear the claim comprised Judge Eddie Durie (presiding), Professor Gordon Orr, and Georgina Te Heuheu, and it reported on four such cases, Auckland, South Auckland, Wellington and Waikenae.

In its Report on South Auckland Railway Lands of 18 May 1992, the Tribunal found that the Crown would not be acting contrary to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi if it disposed of railway assets in Soouth Auckland upon the terms agreed with certain named people and organisations.

In June 1991, Archie Taiaroa, on behalf of himself and Māori affiliated to the National Māori Congress, lodged a claim with the Waitangi Tribunal concerning the disposal of surplus New Zealand Railways lands. The Tribunal constituted to hear the claim comprised Judge Eddie Durie (presiding), Professor Gordon Orr, and Georgina Te Heuheu, and it reported on four such cases, Auckland, South Auckland, Wellington and Waikenae.

In 1992, the Crown-Congress Joint Working Party proposed a scheme for the disposal of surplus railways lands on Tamaki isthmus, Auckland. In its Report on Auckland Railway Lands of 21 May 1992, the Tribunal was satisfied that Ngāti Whātua, Ngāti Paoa, Ngātitai, and Waiohua had interests in the area and it found that the sale of the lands on the basis of the agreements made would not be contrary to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.

In June 1991, Archie Taiaroa, on behalf of himself and Māori affiliated to the National Māori Congress, lodged a claim with the Waitangi Tribunal concerning the disposal of surplus New Zealand Railways lands. The Tribunal constituted to hear the claim comprised Judge Eddie Durie (presiding), Professor Gordon Orr, and Georgina Te Heuheu, and it reported on four such cases, Auckland, South Auckland, Wellington and Waikenae.

In 1992, the Crown-Congress Joint Working Party proposed a scheme for the disposal of surplus railways lands from the south coast to Pukerua Bay to Maymorn in the Upper Hutt Valley. In its Report on Wellington Railway Lands of 21 December 1992, the Tribunal found that the Crown would not be acting contrary to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi to effect an arragement for the sale of the railway lands to certain named persons and organisations.

Motiti: Report on the Te Moutere o Motiti Inquiry addresses a claim that the Crown breached the principles of Te Tiriti by failing to recognise Ngā Hapū o te Moutere o Motiti as an independent tribal group who warrant their own Treaty settlement, instead wrongly assuming they were covered by the Ngāti Awa settlement.

The inquiry centred on a 2015–16 process, termed the ‘kinship review’, by which the Crown sought to assess the claimants’ assertion that they are a distinct tribal group, separate from Ngāti Awa, and their historical Treaty claims thus remain unsettled.

The central issue for inquiry was therefore whether the Crown, through its kinship review, properly informed itself of the identity of the tangata whenua of Motiti.

The inquiry panel comprised Judge Miharo Armstrong (presiding), Dr Ann Parsonson, Associate Professor Tom Roa, and Tania Simpson. The hearings began in May 2018 and were held over five separate weeks in Tauranga and Whakatāne, concluding in September 2019.

In order to address the central issue, the Tribunal had to consider the more fundamental question of who the tangata whenua of Motiti are. The Tribunal found that Te Patuwai and Te Whānau a Tauwhao are the tangata whenua of Motiti, and that Te Patuwai affiliate to Ngāti Awa.
In addition, the Tribunal found that any historical claims to Motiti based on descent from Te Hapū were settled as a Ngāti Awa historical claim through the deed of settlement and the Ngāti Awa Claims Settlement Act 2005.

Concerning the kinship review, the Tribunal found that, although its outcome was a correct assessment of the issues before the Crown, the process the Crown used to engage with the tangata of Motiti was flawed. Given the importance of tribal identity and affiliation in te ao Māori, the Crown should have approached the review in a more culturally appropriate way, the Tribunal considered. The Crown fell short of this requirement by failing to fully engage with all groups at the outset, failing to invite all groups to participate in the process’s initial design, and failing to support and engage in a tikanga-based process to resolve the questions under review, instead making an assessment of them itself.

Though the process was flawed, the Tribunal nevertheless found the Crown acted appropriately overall. It conducted the review in a largely open and transparent way, and took corrective action during the review to make it more inclusive, including meeting affected groups earlier than planned, and supporting all groups to discuss the issues with each other. In these and other respects, the Tribunal found the Crown acted in good faith, and ultimately met its duty of consultation to all groups.

Consequently, the Tribunal did not find that the kinship review process, considered as a whole, breached the principles of partnership and equal treatment.

In light of the process’s flaws, however, it offered suggestions about how the Crown should approach disputes about tribal identity in general. It suggested that:

• In the first instance, the Crown’s role is to support all groups concerned to explore these questions themselves and try to reach agreement according to tikanga.
• Tangata whenua should be involved in the design of this process, and in the design of any research process initiated to help resolve the dispute. The Crown should consider how it can assist in this work.
• The Crown should be mindful that its proper role in the research process, in the first instance at least, may be to collate and share relevant information with the parties concerned, rather than to undertake analysis of the information with a view to reaching conclusions itself.
• If discussion between the groups concerned breaks down or yields no agreement, the Crown may make its own assessment of the evidence and comment on whether it considers it conclusive or not, and why. However, where the question of identity is highly contested, the Crown should be very cautious about proceeding. Other independent facilitation or resolution processes may need to be considered.

In response to the Crown’s request for guidance on how to engage with the tangata whenua of Motiti, the Tribunal also offered suggestions about how it should engage with Te Patuwai in respect of the island (its suggestions did not concern the Crown’s engagement with Te Whānau a Tauwhao, as they were not a focus of this inquiry). It suggested that, on all issues concerning Motiti, the Crown should first engage with the Te Patuwai Tribal Committee to receive direction on which entities it should engage with – marae, hapū, or iwi – about that issue. The Te Patuwai Tribal Committee would connect the Crown with the relevant representatives of the marae, the hapū, or the iwi as appropriate.

The Waitangi Tribunal has released The Report on the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, concluding the inquiry into the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) which has proceeded over three stages.

The inquiry panel comprised Judge Michael Doogan (presiding officer), David Cochrane, Professor Susy Frankel, Tā Hirini Moko Mead, Kim Ngarimu, and Tania Simpson. Hearings were held at the Waitangi Tribunal’s hearing room in Wellington from 17 to 19 November 2020.

Originally, stage 3 of the inquiry included issues relating to engagement, secrecy, and data sovereignty. The issues of engagement and secrecy were resolved through mediation and, as a result, the majority of claims were withdrawn. The two remaining claims contained pleadings relevant to the remaining issue; data sovereignty. As such, the report asks one question: What (if any) aspects of the e-commerce chapter of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership are inconsistent with the Crown’s obligations under te Tiriti/the Treaty?

The Tribunal concluded that the risk to Māori interests arising from the electronic commerce (e-commerce) provisions are significant and that reliance on exceptions and exclusions in the agreement to mitigate that risk falls short of the Crown’s duty of active protection. As a result, the Tribunal found  that the Crown has failed to meet the Tiriti/Treaty standard of active protection and that this failure constitutes a breach of the Tiriti/Treaty principles of partnership and active protection.

Having found Tiriti/Treaty breach, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that it would not be appropriate to make recommendations in the circumstances of this case. This is largely because, over the five years since the inquiry began, a significant shift in the Crown’s position in response to claims has ocurred and a number of processes are underway, or in place, to address concerns. Additionally, the resolution of issues relating to engagement and secrecy through mediation gave the Tribunal significant reason to pause and think carefully about what (if any) recommendations it could make that would remove or mitigate prejudice in ways not already addressed as a result of commitments or processes already underway.

Having considered the relief sought by the claimants, the Tribunal declined to recommend that further e-commerce negotiations be suspended until an effective or proper regime had been designed. The Tribunal agreed with the Trade for All Advisory Board that there is a need for a comprehensive review of Aotearoa New Zealand’s policy and that, until such  review is carried out, the Government should avoid locking the country into any fixed negotiating positions. It is the Tribunal’s understanding that the Crown has accepted this recommendation and the review, which  engages Te Taumata and Ngā Toki Whakarururanga, is currently underway. The Tribunal also saw the recently announced Agreement in Principle between the United Kingdom and New Zealand, which will include a chapter on indigenous trade, as indicative of what is possible without freezing international negotiations altogether.

Overall, the Tribunal acknowledged there will be challenges ahead. However, it described these matters as best left for negotiation and dialogue between the Tiriti/Treaty partners in good faith and within the fora and processes now in place.

 

In June 2019, the Tribunal released Hauora: Report on Stage One of the Health Services and Outcomes Kaupapa Inquiry. Stage one of the inquiry had addressed two claims, calling on the Tribunal to investigate the Crown’s legislation, policy, actions, and omissions of the primary health care system since the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act 2000. After hearing evidence throughout 2018 and 2019, the Tribunal made a series of interim recommendations in the Hauora report, and directed the Crown and claimants to inform the Tribunal on the progress made.

After considering the parties’ submissions on their progress, as well as the Crown’s proposed health reforms, in October 2021, the Tribunal issued a further chapter of the Hauora report (chapter 10), setting out its final recommendations. The release of chapter 10 marked the end of the first stage of this ongoing inquiry into the Crown’s response to health inequities experienced by Māori.

The Tribunal’s main finding in Hauora was that the Crown had breached the Treaty of Waitangi by failing to design and administer the current primary health care system to actively address persistent Māori health inequities, and failing to give effect to the Treaty’s guarantee of tino rangatiratanga (autonomy, self-determination, sovereignty, self-government). It also found that the Crown had failed to guarantee Māori adequate decision-making authority regarding the design and delivery of primary health services and to properly support and resource Māori primary health organisations and health providers.

The 2019 report also made three interim recommendations, two of which were time-bound. The first called upon the Crown to explore the concept of a standalone Māori primary health authority, working together with claimants to further assess the extent of the problems in primary health care, and to co-design a set of solutions. Throughout the hearings, both claimant groups broadly suggested creating a national, Māori-controlled agency, organisation, or collective, which would have substantial oversight and control of Māori health-related spending and policy. The Tribunal’s second time-bound interim recommendation required the Crown and claimants to agree upon a methodology to assess the extent of underfunding. Both time-bound interim recommendations required the Crown and claimants to keep the Tribunal updated as to their progress.

In chapter 10, released in 2021, the Tribunal reviewed the progress the parties had made towards fulfilling those interim recommendations. The Crown’s announcement in early 2021 that it would commence significant structural reform within the health sector and establish a Māori Health Authority satisfied the first interim recommendation. The Tribunal evaluated the Crown’s high-level descriptions of the reforms against its 2019 findings and recommendations, emphasising that the Crown needed to ensure the reforms and the Māori Health Authority empowered tino rangatiratanga of hauora Māori. With respect to its interim recommendation on underfunding, the Tribunal expressed its disappointment that an underfunding methodology had not been jointly agreed upon. However, the Tribunal noted that the claimants had commissioned and produced an independent report, which it considered a good starting point towards determining the amount of compensation due to Māori health organisations and providers.

In chapter 10, the Tribunal also called for collaboration to continue between parties to develop a Treaty-compliant primary health care system. Accordingly, the Tribunal’s final recommendations for the stage one inquiry were that:

• the Crown continue to work with claimants in partnership to further develop a Māori Health Authority that empowers tino rangatiratanga;
• the Crown and claimants urgently progress work to agree upon a methodology to calculate underfunding experienced by Māori primary health care organisations and providers since 2000;
• once the Crown and claimants agree upon a methodology, the Crown fully compensate those Māori health organisations and providers that had suffered from underfunding;
• once parties calculate the amount of compensation due, they agree upon a method of payment, whether as a lump sum or in instalments;
• the Crown fully reimburse claimants for the costs of producing the Sapere report, and fund the process required to agree upon an underfunding methodology; and
• the Crown work with the claimants to use the underfunding methodology work to inform future primary health care funding.

In April 2022, the Waitangi Tribunal confirmed it would inquire into allegations concerning claimant funding in its jurisdiction as a first step in the newly constituted inquiry into the justice system, Te Rau o te Tika. The inquiry panel comprises Judge Carrie Wainwright (presiding), Dr Paul Hamer, Dr Ruakere Hond, and Dr Hana O’Regan. Their resulting report, Whakatika ki Runga, a Mini-inquiry Commencing Te Rau o te Tika: The Justice System Inquiry, focuses on the following four main issues:

• Whether claimants before the Waitangi Tribunal have a right to funding to enable their full participation.
• Whether the Crown accepts, as a matter of principle, that it has an obligation to fund claimants’ participation.
• The adequacy of the Crown’s ‘lead agency approach’ to funding claimants in kaupapa inquiries.
• The adequacy of legal aid under the Legal Services Act 2011 for claimants in the Waitangi Tribunal.

The Tribunal received 53 claims for the inquiry, and 37 parties were granted interested party status, including the Crown Forestry Rental Trust. Three hearings were held in Porirua and Wellington in July, September, and October 2022. The Tribunal heard from over 40 claimant witnesses, including 11 Crown witnesses from eight separate Government agencies, the former president of the New Zealand Law Society, and the Crown Forestry Rental Trust.
The Tribunal found that the Crown breached its Treaty duty to ensure that Māori claimants have the necessary resources to participate fully in all Waitangi Tribunal processes. It was particularly concerned that officials knew about the inadequacies of the present funding arrangements, but Ministers did not act on their advice.

The Tribunal observed that the unavailability of adequate funding compromises claimants’ ability to make and pursue their Tribunal claims, which undermines the Tribunal as a pillar of New Zealand’s constitution. It reinforced that it is the Crown’s responsibility under the Treaty, and under its own Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975, to ensure that claimants can access Tribunal processes easily.

The Tribunal recommended that the Crown and Māori co-design suitable funding arrangements. Until long-term arrangements are agreed, the Tribunal also recommended that the Crown impose a standardised funding protocol for all kaupapa and contemporary inquiries.
The Tribunal further found that claimants and their lawyers have a right to file submissions and evidence in te reo Māori and have them translated into English without cost or inconvenience to them. The Crown and the Waitangi Tribunal Unit must support the use of te reo Māori in the Tribunal, whether orally or in writing.

The Tribunal found that various administrative issues with legal aid in Tribunal proceedings meant that the system falls short in terms of both fairness and the Crown’s Treaty obligations. However, it did not recommend any changes to the Legal Services Act 2011, noting that an examination of legal aid in Aotearoa will form part the wider inquiry and that legal aid provisions in the Tribunal may change as a result of the recommended process of Māori–Crown co-design.
The next phase of the inquiry is Te Tūāpapa o te Tika, which will commence with a series of hui and wānanga in May 2023. This phase will consider how foundational principles of tikanga and justice will be applied in the inquiry. Four Pou Tikanga have been commissioned by the Tribunal to engage with the panel and parties as experts on these matters: Moe Milne, Ruth Smith, Paraone Gloyne, and Rāhui Papa.

‘Ka ngahae ngā pī, ko Waikanae.’

‘Staring in amazement, hence Waikanae.’

—Haunui-a-Nanaia

The Waitangi Tribunal’s Waikanae: Report on Te Ātiawa/Ngāti Awa Claims was released on 15 December 2022 in pre-publication format. The report concerns 17 claims made by whānau, hapū, and iwi organisations of Te Ātiawa/Ngāti Awa ki Kāpiti – an iwi based on the west coast of the lower North Island with strong ties to Taranaki.

These claims focused on land, cultural sites, and resources of the iwi’s traditional rohe, which covers modern-day Waikanae and Paraparaumu, with interests as far south as Paekākāriki. The claims were heard as part of the Porirua ki Manawatū district inquiry (Wai 2200), over the course of five hearings in 2018 and 2019. The panel that heard these claims was led by Presiding Officer Deputy Chief Judge Caren Fox and included Tribunal members Tania Simpson, Sir Douglas Kidd, Dr Monty Soutar, and Dr Grant Phillipson.

In this report, the Tribunal found that the Crown’s treatment of Te Ātiawa/Ngāti Awa during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries breached the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, resulting in significant prejudice that is still felt today. Despite the promises of protection and partnership made by Governor George Grey to Te Ātiawa/Ngāti Awa in the 1840s, today the iwi is virtually landless. The Crown conceded that this landlessness was the cumulative effect of its acts and omissions and that this had a ‘devasting impact’ on the iwi.

The Tribunal accepted these concessions and identified several other important Treaty breaches:

• It found that the Crown breached the Treaty in its 1858 and 1859 purchases of the Wainui and Whareroa blocks by failing to inquire who owned the land before purchasing, by imposing the purchases on non-sellers without consent, and by making inadequate reserves for their present and future needs. The Tribunal also held that the Crown breached the Treaty when it threatened Waikanae tribal leaders with land confiscation if they continued to support the Māori King movement in the 1860s.
• The Tribunal also found that the Crown’s native land laws breached Treaty principles between 1870 and 1900. These laws converted tribal customary rights into a finite list of individuals. Those individuals had the power to partition or to sell but no power at the time to establish a body to manage their lands collectively. The Crown failed to give a proper remedy when Te Ātiawa/Ngāti Awa petitioned Parliament about their grievances in the 1890s. Also, the Crown did not give Māori landowners the same access to cheap development loans as non-Māori. As a result of all these breaches, there was rapid loss of land between 1891 and 1930. Most Te Ātiawa/Ngāti Awa owners were virtually landless before 1930. Māori land ownership at Waikanae and Paraparaumu was further reduced in the 1960s by the Crown’s failure to prevent compulsory sales of Māori land for the non-payment of rates, even where the land did not produce revenue. This was a breach of the Treaty.
• The Crown was also found in breach of the Treaty for its compulsory public works takings of land for the Paraparaumu Aerodrome (now the Kāpiti Coast Airport) in the 1930s and 1940s. The Crown then failed to protect the interests of the original owners when privatising the airport in 1995. The Crown also failed to properly consider offering surplus land back to the original owners before selling the airport to a private company. The Crown conceded that it failed to protect the original owners’ rights when the airport company sold land in 1999, in breach of the Treaty.
• Regarding the Waikanae River, the Tribunal found that Te Ātiawa/Ngāti Awa never intended to relinquish their rights to this important taonga, but the river bed was alienated from the iwi as a result of individual titles and surveying practices. This was a breach of the Treaty. The iwi’s control of the river was further undermined by actions of local government, enabled under legislation.
• The Crown also breached Treaty principles through the Town and Country Planning Act 1953, which allowed the Waikanae town centre to be sited on top of Te Ātiawa/Ngāti Awa homes without adequate consultation or consideration of Māori interests. On balance, the Tribunal also found that the Crown acquired the land for the Hemi Matenga Memorial Park, which is on the hillside above Waikanae township, in breach of the Treaty, and that today the claimants are unable to exercise tino rangatiratanga and kaitiakitanga over this taonga as the Treaty partnership requires.

To address the harm caused by the Crown’s Treaty breaches, the Tribunal recommended that the Crown urgently negotiate a Treaty settlement with Te Ātiawa/Ngāti Awa. Within these negotiations, the Crown should consider restoring legal ownership of Hemi Matenga Memorial Park and creating a co-governance arrangement for its management. The Tribunal also recommended that the Crown amend the offer-back procedures of the Public Works Act 1981, which prejudiced the former owners of Kāpiti Coast Airport lands.

Tribunal decision concerning Treaty settlement with Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua and the trustees of the Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua Settlement Trust

In the Mangatū Remedies Report 2021, released today (1 October 2021), the Waitangi Tribunal  makes an interim recommendation under section 8HB of the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 that the Crown return to Māori ownership the Mangatū Crown forest land in the Tūranganui a Kiwa district, together with monetary compensation.

During 2018 and 2019, the Tribunal heard remedies applications seeking such a recommendation from several claimant groups: Te Aitanga a Māhaki and the Mangatū Incorporation, Ngā Uri o Tamanui, and Te Whānau a Kai. Another group, Te Rangiwhakataetaea–Wi Haronga–Ngāti Matepu, participated in the remedies inquiry as an interested party. The Tribunal had previously inquired into the claims of Te Aitanga a Māhaki, Ngā Uri o Tamanui, and Te Whānau a Kai in the Tūranga district inquiry, reporting on them in the 2004 Turanga Tangata Turanga Whenua: The Report on the Turanganui a Kiwa Claims. In that report, the Tribunal made findings on Crown Treaty breaches in the district, ranging from the attack on the defensive pā at Waerenga a Hika in 1865 to the Crown’s acquisition in 1961 of parts of the land now comprising the Mangatū Crown forest licensed land.

In this subsequent remedies inquiry, the Tribunal was required to decide whether to recommend the return of land as a remedy for the claimants’ well-founded claims that relate to the Mangatū Crown forest licensed land. If the Tribunal determined that the land should be returned to Māori, it would then have to decide how much and to which claimant groups. Under section 36 of the Crown Forest Assets Act 1989, and schedule 1 to that Act, the return of Crown forest licensed land to Māori ownership is also accompanied by monetary compensation. The value of the available compensation is tied to the value of the of the cutting rights for the Mangatū Crown forest, which were sold by the Crown in 1990. The Tribunal has a discretion to award between 5 and 100 per cent of the available compensation.

In the Mangatū Remedies Report 2021, the Tribunal determines that Te Aitanga a Māhaki and the Mangatū Incorporation, Ngā Uri o Tamanui, and Te Whānau a Kai have well-founded claims that relate to the Mangatū Crown forest land. The relevant claims address Crown Treaty breaches that led to the loss of the claimants’ tino rangatiratanga and mana whenua in that land. The claims concern both the specific circumstances in which the land was lost from Māori ownership, as well as the Crown’s wider actions that were specifically designed to destroy Māori autonomy and control over their lands in Tūranga.

As a remedy for the prejudice suffered by the claimants, the Tribunal determines that the whole of the Mangatū Crown forest licensed land should be returned to Te Aitanga a Māhaki, Ngā Uri o Tamanui, and Te Whānau a Kai. The claimants should receive the full financial compensation available under schedule 1 to the Crown Forests Assets Act. The Mangatū land should be returned to a collective trust to be established by the claimants, called the Mangatū Forest Collective Trust. The trust’s beneficiaries would be the legally recognised governance entities that Te Aitanga a Māhaki Trust, Ngā Uri o Tamanui, and Te Whānau a Kai established following the 2018 remedies hearings, and which were ratified by the claimant communities.

Following the release of this report, claimant parties and the Crown have a period of 90 days to begin to negotiate the settlement of their claims. If an alternative agreement is reached through these negotiations, the Tribunal will cancel or modify its interim recommendation as necessary. Otherwise, after the 90 days has passed, the Tribunal’s interim recommendation becomes binding on the Crown.

The Mangatū Remedies Inquiry panel comprises Judge Stephanie Milroy (presiding), Tim Castle, Dr Ann Parsonson, and Ahonuku Tom Roa. Hearings were held in Gisborne and Wellington between August 2018 and July 2019.