The Report on the Management of the Petroleum Resource is the Waitangi Tribunal’s second report on petroleum claims and results from an urgent inquiry held in 2010 to investigate the management of the resource in modern times. It forms the sequel to the Tribunal’s first report published in 2003, which considered the ownership of the petroleum resource. The Tribunal, consisting of Judge Layne Harvey (presiding), Joanne Morris, Basil Morrison, and Professor Pou Temara, heard the claims at Aotearoa Pa, Okaiawa, from 26 to 29 April 2010, and the closing submissions at the Wellington District Court on 6 May. The report was released on 20 April 2011.

The claims considered in the report were brought against the Crown by Ngāruahine of Taranaki and by Ngāti Kahungunu of Hawke’s Bay and the Wairarapa. Taranaki has already been extensively affected by petroleum prospecting, exploration, and production, and exploratory drilling has also been carried out in Hawke’s Bay and the Wairarapa. The current regime for managing petroleum is governed by the Crown Minerals Act and the Resource Management Act, both of 1991. In essence, the claimants saw three main problems with the regime. They said that the substance of the legislation was biased against Māori and favoured the interests of others. They claimed further that the processes established to apply the legislation failed to ensure effective participation by Māori. Indeed, the processes in question might even deter or deny Māori involvement, meaning that Māori struggle to safeguard their interests. Lastly, said the claimants, a further obstacle was created by the lack of reliable and sufficient assistance for Māori communities to participate in resource management processes. As a result, the claimants said, the regime breached the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.

In the course of the inquiry, the Crown accepted that Māori capacity to participate in resource management processes was an issue but said that ‘incremental steps’ were being taken to improve the situation. Other than that, the Crown denied the claims.

Having examined the evidence presented, the Tribunal said that it was ‘disturbed by the extent to which the current regime depends for its protection of Māori interests on the ad hoc involvement of Māori individuals and groups who are ill-resourced to bear the burdens involved’. The Tribunal was particularly concerned about the effects of the regime on sites of historical and cultural significance in Taranaki, given the already devastating effects of land confiscation there in the nineteenth century. The Tribunal noted that many of the sites were not only significant to Māori but had a bearing on the history and identity of New Zealand as a whole.

For the petroleum management regime to meet the standards of the Treaty, the Tribunal found that four criteria needed to be met. Tangata whenua must be able to:

• count on being involved at key points in decision-making processes that affect their interests;
• make a well-informed contribution to decisions;
• afford to have that level of involvement; and
• be confident that their contribution will be understood and valued.

The Tribunal found that, overall, this was not happening. In part, this was because the rūnanga or iwi authorities envisaged under the Runanga Iwi Act 1990, and intended to act as a kind of Māori counterpart to local government bodies, were disestablished when that Act was repealed less than a year after it was passed. Another problem was the complexity of the petroleum management regime, and the number of local government processes in which Māori were required to engage simultaneously if they wished to try to protect their interests. To help address the situation, the Tribunal made 11 recommendations covering matters such as:

• The establishment of a ministerial advisory committee to provide advice directly to the Minister of Energy on Māori perspectives and concerns.
• The re-establishment of district and regional representative bodies for tangata whenua, for the purpose, among other things, of considering petroleum management issues. Such bodies should be adequately resourced by central government and empowered with some decision-making responsibilities by local government.
• The use of a small percentage of the Crown’s petroleum royalties to establish a fund to which iwi and hapū could apply for assistance to help them participate more effectively in petroleum management processes.
• Greater use of joint hearings by local authorities on matters relating to petroleum management.
• Reform of the Crown Minerals Act, including strengthening the Treaty provisions, amending the compulsory arbitration requirements, and enhancing the provisions for site protection.

In closing, the Tribunal noted that its findings on the petroleum management regime had implications for the resource management regime more generally, and it hoped that its recommendations might also be of assistance to the Crown in that broader context.

On Saturday 3 September 2010, the Tribunal released its report Tauranga Moana, 1886–2006: Report on the Post-Raupatu Claims.

In stage 2 of its inquiry into Tauranga Moana claims, the Tribunal examined issues relating to the decades since the confiscation (the latter having been the subject of stage 1). Over 50 claims had grievances needing investigation in this second stage, including three claims from groups that had not appeared in stage 1, namely Ngati Mahana, Ngati Motai, and Ngati Hinerangi.

The Tribunal, consisting of Judge Stephanie Milroy (presiding), John Clarke, Areta Koopu, and Professor Keith Sorrenson, found that Tauranga iwi and hapu continued to lose significant amounts of land after 1886, notably through Crown purchasing, public works, pressures caused by actual and potential rates debt, and the processes of urbanisation and subdivision. The tangata whenua could ill afford to lose any land at all, and the scale of the loss has compounded the prejudice they suffered from the raupatu and its aftermath. Particularly disappointing was the lack of adequate protection or assistance for those groups that were left landless or nearly so. However, no group was totally unaffected by land loss.

Even where Maori managed to retain land, they faced considerable difficulty trying to develop it. To a large extent, the cause of this was the land tenure and administration system imposed by the Crown on Maori owners. While the Tauranga panel acknowledges that the Crown made efforts at times to assist Maori to overcome the disadvantages created, it is in no doubt that overall the Crown failed to provide the level of protection and support promised under the Treaty.

The Tribunal also found that rates have often been a particular problem for Maori land held in multiple ownership, and it recommended the introduction of new valuation legislation that is more consistent with the Treaty. The Tribunal looked at the planning legislation that had underpinned urbanisation and economic development over the years, concluding that such legislation had often failed to reflect Maori needs, perspectives, and aspirations, and it discussed the lack of political representation for Maori at the local level. It is only in recent years that legislation to encourage Maori participation in local government has been put in place, with Environment Bay of Plenty leading the way in creating Maori seats and electorates. The Tribunal commented that there needed to be much more vigorous pursuit of such policies if development sensitive to Maori views and aspirations were to flourish.

The Tribunal noted that, along with their loss of land, Tauranga Maori suffered reduced access to, and use of, traditional resources from the rivers, sea, and forests of Tauranga Moana. The intensification of economic activity and the accelerating pace of urban development also often led to degradation and pollution of those environments. Alongside that, development had endangered the cultural heritage of Tauranga Maori: despite some protections, many sites of cultural, spiritual, and historical importance had been modified or even destroyed. Where their environment and cultural heritage were concerned, the tangata whenua had to fight hard to maintain even a faint shadow of the tino rangatiratanga and kaitiakitanga they exercised at the time the Treaty was signed. The Tribunal recommended various ways by which the Crown could assist in restoring a measure of rangatiratanga to the iwi and hapu of the district.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found that the cumulative and interlinked effects of different Government processes and legislative provisions have created considerable prejudice to Tauranga Moana Maori, all too often marginalising them socially, culturally, and economically in the area that has for centuries been their home. Further, the economic marginalisation had resulted in lost opportunity costs that impacted on their ability to recover. Despite some improvements over recent years, Maori socio-economic statistics still lagged some way behind those of non-Maori. Looking forward, the Tribunal urged greater collaboration and information flow between various arms of Government in order to redress the prejudice suffered and to assist Maori in their future development. It recommended that the settlement of claims of Tauranga iwi and hapu be addressed as a matter of high priority, and it urged that substantial redress be made for post-1886 breaches, separately and in addition to redress for the raupatu. The Tribunal particularly stressed the importance of returning land wherever possible.

On Saturday 3 September 2010, the Tribunal released its report Tauranga Moana, 1886–2006: Report on the Post-Raupatu Claims.

In stage 2 of its inquiry into Tauranga Moana claims, the Tribunal examined issues relating to the decades since the confiscation (the latter having been the subject of stage 1). Over 50 claims had grievances needing investigation in this second stage, including three claims from groups that had not appeared in stage 1, namely Ngati Mahana, Ngati Motai, and Ngati Hinerangi.

The Tribunal, consisting of Judge Stephanie Milroy (presiding), John Clarke, Areta Koopu, and Professor Keith Sorrenson, found that Tauranga iwi and hapu continued to lose significant amounts of land after 1886, notably through Crown purchasing, public works, pressures caused by actual and potential rates debt, and the processes of urbanisation and subdivision. The tangata whenua could ill afford to lose any land at all, and the scale of the loss has compounded the prejudice they suffered from the raupatu and its aftermath. Particularly disappointing was the lack of adequate protection or assistance for those groups that were left landless or nearly so. However, no group was totally unaffected by land loss.

Even where Maori managed to retain land, they faced considerable difficulty trying to develop it. To a large extent, the cause of this was the land tenure and administration system imposed by the Crown on Maori owners. While the Tauranga panel acknowledges that the Crown made efforts at times to assist Maori to overcome the disadvantages created, it is in no doubt that overall the Crown failed to provide the level of protection and support promised under the Treaty.

The Tribunal also found that rates have often been a particular problem for Maori land held in multiple ownership, and it recommended the introduction of new valuation legislation that is more consistent with the Treaty. The Tribunal looked at the planning legislation that had underpinned urbanisation and economic development over the years, concluding that such legislation had often failed to reflect Maori needs, perspectives, and aspirations, and it discussed the lack of political representation for Maori at the local level. It is only in recent years that legislation to encourage Maori participation in local government has been put in place, with Environment Bay of Plenty leading the way in creating Maori seats and electorates. The Tribunal commented that there needed to be much more vigorous pursuit of such policies if development sensitive to Maori views and aspirations were to flourish.

The Tribunal noted that, along with their loss of land, Tauranga Maori suffered reduced access to, and use of, traditional resources from the rivers, sea, and forests of Tauranga Moana. The intensification of economic activity and the accelerating pace of urban development also often led to degradation and pollution of those environments. Alongside that, development had endangered the cultural heritage of Tauranga Maori: despite some protections, many sites of cultural, spiritual, and historical importance had been modified or even destroyed. Where their environment and cultural heritage were concerned, the tangata whenua had to fight hard to maintain even a faint shadow of the tino rangatiratanga and kaitiakitanga they exercised at the time the Treaty was signed. The Tribunal recommended various ways by which the Crown could assist in restoring a measure of rangatiratanga to the iwi and hapu of the district.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found that the cumulative and interlinked effects of different Government processes and legislative provisions have created considerable prejudice to Tauranga Moana Maori, all too often marginalising them socially, culturally, and economically in the area that has for centuries been their home. Further, the economic marginalisation had resulted in lost opportunity costs that impacted on their ability to recover. Despite some improvements over recent years, Maori socio-economic statistics still lagged some way behind those of non-Maori. Looking forward, the Tribunal urged greater collaboration and information flow between various arms of Government in order to redress the prejudice suffered and to assist Maori in their future development. It recommended that the settlement of claims of Tauranga iwi and hapu be addressed as a matter of high priority, and it urged that substantial redress be made for post-1886 breaches, separately and in addition to redress for the raupatu. The Tribunal particularly stressed the importance of returning land wherever possible.

The Wairarapa ki Tararua report was released on Saturday 26 June 2010 at Te Ore Ore Marae, Masterton.[1] The three-volume report covers 17 claims filed by members of Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne hapū and other claimant groups.

The Tribunal panel consisted of Judge Carrie Wainwright (presiding), Professor Wharehuia Milroy, Dr Ranganui Walker, and Dame Margaret Bazley, and nine weeks of hearings were held between March 2004 and March 2005. The inquiry district, a covered the south-eastern corner of the North Island inland to the Ruahine and Tararua Ranges and northward the southern Hawke’s Bay.

In its report, the Tribunal found that Crown acts and omissions in this district constituted serious breaches of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. In the nineteenth century the Crown purchased too much Māori land too quickly and without regard to the inevitable plight of a Māori population left virtually landless in a part of the country where agricultural enterprise was the principal route to a good livelihood.

The Tribunal urged that Māori rights in and around Wairarapa Moana be recognised and given effect. In its view, the important and little-known history of Wairarapa Moana and Pouākani is a story in which all the credit for honour, reasonableness and restraint goes to the Māori actors, and little to either the representatives of the settler government of that time or indeed to the Wairarapa farmers who so resented Māori controlling the opening of the wetland to the sea.

The Tribunal considered that there is not enough muscle in the legislation governing the relationship between tangata whenua and local authorities, DOC, agencies involved in Māori heritage management, and the Ministry of Fisheries to enable Māori in the district to make their views count to an extent that is at all appropriate in Treaty terms. As a result, it is difficult for the district’s Māori population to exercise any meaningful influence over what goes on in their own locality.

The Tribunal was concerned that many important Māori heritage sites in the region are vulnerable. Some of the archaeological sites, especially in the south, are internationally significant, and it considered that the current regime for their recognition and protection is inadequate.

The Tribunal noted that it has not observed any Government response to its recommendations, first released in July 2009, for changes to the public works regime removing the legislative power to acquire Māori land compulsorily for public works.  It expressed the hope that this area of policy will soon get the attention it has so long been denied.

The Tribunal considered that Māori of this region have been sorely tested over a long period. Their small population and early colonisation left them struggling to assert their mana and identity in the face of a Pākehā majority that soon owned most of the land, made all of the decisions, and did not value Māori culture or language.

The Tribunal was concerned that te reo Māori has reached a very low ebb in this area. Māori language tuition is not easily accessible to most and is not even available to all Māori children, especially after early childhood. Improved access and more resources are necessary if the Crown is to make amends for the wrongs of the past.

The Tribunal recorded its strong impression of an improvement in the historically difficult relationship between the two tribes of this region, Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne, during the course of the inquiry. It expresses the hope that this will set the scene for a successful negotiated resolution of the Treaty breaches documented in its report.

This was to assist claimants and the Crown in negotiations concerning the return of the former Ōkautete School buildings situated near Homewood in the eastern Wairarapa. The Tribunal recommended that, having properly given back the Ōkautete School site to the local Māori community, the Crown should also give them the school buildings and schoolhouse located on the site. The advanced release also highlighted the panel’s broader finding that public works legislation should be changed to forbid the compulsory acquisition of Māori land in all but the most extreme situations. The Tribunal encouraged the Government to heed this finding in its review of aspects of public works procedures and legislation.

[1] Chapter 8, on public works takings, had previously been released in pre-publication format in July 2009.

The Wairarapa ki Tararua report was released on Saturday 26 June 2010 at Te Ore Ore Marae, Masterton.[1] The three-volume report covers 17 claims filed by members of Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne hapū and other claimant groups.

The Tribunal panel consisted of Judge Carrie Wainwright (presiding), Professor Wharehuia Milroy, Dr Ranganui Walker, and Dame Margaret Bazley, and nine weeks of hearings were held between March 2004 and March 2005. The inquiry district, a covered the south-eastern corner of the North Island inland to the Ruahine and Tararua Ranges and northward the southern Hawke’s Bay.

In its report, the Tribunal found that Crown acts and omissions in this district constituted serious breaches of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. In the nineteenth century the Crown purchased too much Māori land too quickly and without regard to the inevitable plight of a Māori population left virtually landless in a part of the country where agricultural enterprise was the principal route to a good livelihood.

The Tribunal urged that Māori rights in and around Wairarapa Moana be recognised and given effect. In its view, the important and little-known history of Wairarapa Moana and Pouākani is a story in which all the credit for honour, reasonableness and restraint goes to the Māori actors, and little to either the representatives of the settler government of that time or indeed to the Wairarapa farmers who so resented Māori controlling the opening of the wetland to the sea.

The Tribunal considered that there is not enough muscle in the legislation governing the relationship between tangata whenua and local authorities, DOC, agencies involved in Māori heritage management, and the Ministry of Fisheries to enable Māori in the district to make their views count to an extent that is at all appropriate in Treaty terms. As a result, it is difficult for the district’s Māori population to exercise any meaningful influence over what goes on in their own locality.

The Tribunal was concerned that many important Māori heritage sites in the region are vulnerable. Some of the archaeological sites, especially in the south, are internationally significant, and it considered that the current regime for their recognition and protection is inadequate.

The Tribunal noted that it has not observed any Government response to its recommendations, first released in July 2009, for changes to the public works regime removing the legislative power to acquire Māori land compulsorily for public works.  It expressed the hope that this area of policy will soon get the attention it has so long been denied.

The Tribunal considered that Māori of this region have been sorely tested over a long period. Their small population and early colonisation left them struggling to assert their mana and identity in the face of a Pākehā majority that soon owned most of the land, made all of the decisions, and did not value Māori culture or language.

The Tribunal was concerned that te reo Māori has reached a very low ebb in this area. Māori language tuition is not easily accessible to most and is not even available to all Māori children, especially after early childhood. Improved access and more resources are necessary if the Crown is to make amends for the wrongs of the past.

The Tribunal recorded its strong impression of an improvement in the historically difficult relationship between the two tribes of this region, Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne, during the course of the inquiry. It expresses the hope that this will set the scene for a successful negotiated resolution of the Treaty breaches documented in its report.

This was to assist claimants and the Crown in negotiations concerning the return of the former Ōkautete School buildings situated near Homewood in the eastern Wairarapa. The Tribunal recommended that, having properly given back the Ōkautete School site to the local Māori community, the Crown should also give them the school buildings and schoolhouse located on the site. The advanced release also highlighted the panel’s broader finding that public works legislation should be changed to forbid the compulsory acquisition of Māori land in all but the most extreme situations. The Tribunal encouraged the Government to heed this finding in its review of aspects of public works procedures and legislation.

[1] Chapter 8, on public works takings, had previously been released in pre-publication format in July 2009.

The East Coast Settlement Report is the outcome of an urgent Waitangi Tribunal hearing held in Wellington between 14 and 16 December 2009 into the Crown’s recognition of Te Runanga o Ngāti Porou’s (TRONP) mandate to negotiate and settle all historical Ngāti Porou Treaty of Waitangi claims. The Tribunal panel comprised Judge Craig Coxhead (presiding), the Honourable Sir Douglas Kidd, Kihi Ngatai, Tania Simpson, and Basil Morrison.

The three main claimants in the inquiry asserted they represented Ruawaipu, Uepohatu, and Te Aitanga-a-Hauiti. All submitted that they, and those they claimed to represent, were not Ngāti Porou, and TRONP therefore had no valid mandate to represent them in settlement negotiations. The claimants argued that the Crown’s mandating process was flawed and sought a recommendation that the Crown delay the Ngāti Porou settlement negotiations until their historical claims had been inquired into by the Waitangi Tribunal.

TRONP, as a secondary party to these proceedings, argued that those identifying as Ruawaipu, Uepohatu, and Te Aitanga-a-Hauiti were Ngāti Porou. The Crown submitted that TRONP had a valid mandate to negotiate all Ngati Porou historical claims within the East Coast inquiry district. The Tribunal did not inquire into matters of tribal identity but instead focused on the actions of the Crown in recognising TRONP’s mandate.

Having assessed the evidence and arguments of all parties, the Tribunal did not recommend that the Crown delay settlement with TRONP as requested by the claimants. The Tribunal concluded that the potential prejudice of delaying such a significant settlement would outweigh any possible prejudice to the claimants from having their claims settled without their specific consent. The Tribunal was also not convinced that the claimants commanded significant support compared with the support demonstrated by TRONP. The Tribunal was mindful of the fact that both the Crown and TRONP had suggested ways in which at least some of the claimants’ concerns might be addressed.

However, the Tribunal also noted flaws in the process followed by the Crown in recognising TRONP’s mandate. While the Tribunal did not consider that these flaws were so serious as to warrant recommending delaying settlement, it was concerned that they should not be repeated when the Crown seeks to negotiate and settle Treaty claims with other groups. The Tribunal therefore recommended a number of changes to the Crown’s mandate policies to enhance the durability of future settlements. The Tribunal urged the Crown to adopt these recommended changes and to ensure they are reflected in official documents outlining Crown settlement policy. These recommended changes included the following:

• OTS should call for submissions at the point that a proposed mandating strategy is submitted, as well as after a deed of mandate is received. This will allow claimants who have a vested interest in a settlement ample time to comment upon, oppose, or make recommendations on the strategy, as well as to inform the Crown of interested parties and allow it the opportunity to engage with them at an early stage in the process.
• The information provided as part of any mandating strategy must include:
  • the specific claims (Wai numbers) to be included in a proposed settlement;
  • a clear definition of the claimant community on an iwi, hapu, marae, and whakapapa basis; and
  • the specific geographical area to be covered by a proposed settlement.
• OTS should, at an early stage, write to all Wai number claimants whose claims might be extinguished if a proposed settlement goes ahead, informing them of this fact. The earlier in the process claimants know what is being proposed, the earlier they can support or oppose negotiations. Furthermore, the Crown could insist that the negotiating committee formed after the mandating process inform all those affected by the proposed settlement on a regular basis when milestones are reached in its negotiations with Crown officials.
• The Crown should adopt a more proactive role in monitoring developments during the mandating strategy process. While we understand and acknowledge the Crown’s reluctance to intervene in disputes over which claims are to be included in a mandating strategy, it also has a responsibility towards claimants who may feel marginalised as a result of the process.
• The Crown has a responsibility to ensure that all interested parties in a negotiated settlement have access to unhindered participation at every stage of the mandating process. This will lessen the likelihood of claimants seeking recourse to urgency proceedings with the Tribunal and ensure that settlements are conducted in a fair and open manner.
• OTS should update its policy guide, ‘Ka Tika a Muri, Ka Tika a Mua’, to reflect changes that have arisen out of the recommendations of the ‘Te Arawa Settlement Process Reports’ and the ‘Tamaki Makaurau Report’, as well as the recommendations of the present inquiry.

This short report concerns a claim about the inclusion of Ngā Wairiki in the proposed Ngāti Apa Treaty settlement.

On 22 November 2008, the Waitangi Tribunal released its final report on the Treaty claims of iwi and hapu of Te Tau Ihu (northern South Island). The eight recognised iwi are Ngati Apa, Ngati Koata, Ngati Kuia, Ngati Rarua, Ngati Tama, Ngati Toa Rangatira, Te Atiawa, and Rangitane. The report had earlier been released as an incomplete pre-publication edition in order to help with the claimants in their settlement negotiations with the Crown.

The Tribunal inquiry panel comprised Maori land Court Deputy Chief Judge Wilson Isaac (presiding officer), Professor Keith Sorrenson, Pam Ringwood, and John Clarke. The late Rangitihi Tahuparae, a respected kaumatua of Whanganui, passed away on 2 October 2008 between the completion of the report and its publication.

In its report, the Tribunal found that many acts and omissions of the Crown breached the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. In particular, the Tribunal concluded that ownership of all but a tiny fraction of land in the Te Tau Ihu district was lost to Maori without first gaining their free, informed, and meaningful consent to the alienations. Nor did the Crown ensure that fair prices were paid and sufficient lands retained by the iwi for their own requirements.

The Tribunal finds that, contrary to Treaty principles, the Crown granted lands at Nelson and Golden Bay to the New Zealand Company without first ensuring that all customary owners were fairly dealt with. It then proceeded with its own large-scale Wairau and Waipounamu purchases, making predetermined decisions as to ownership which ignored the rights of many Te Tau Ihu Maori or left them with little meaningful choice over the alienation of their lands.

As a result, by as early as 1860 Te Tau Ihu Maori had lost most of their original estate. Thereafter, the Crown failed to actively protect their interests in those lands which remained to them. It also failed to protect their just rights and interests in valued natural resources. Despite petitions from Maori and repeated reports from its own officials, the Crown failed to protect or provide for Maori interests and rights in their customary fisheries and other resources. The result of these failures was grinding poverty, social dislocation, and loss of culture.

The Tribunal found that the totality of Treaty breaches were serious and caused significant social, economic, cultural, and spiritual prejudice to all iwi of Te Tau Ihu. These breaches, the Tribunal considered, required large and culturally appropriate redress.

In an attempt to assist Te Tau Ihu Treaty settlements, the Tribunal made several recommendations for remedies. Having regard in particular to the relatively even spread in terms of social and economic prejudice across all eight Te Tau Ihu iwi, the Tribunal recommended that the total quantum of financial and commercial redress be divided equally between them.

The Tribunal also recommended that site-specific cultural redress should be discussed collectively with all groups involved in Te Tau Ihu Treaty negotiations and that the unique claim of Ngati Apa, whose customary interests within Te Tau Ihu were never extinguished by any kind of deed of cession, needed special recognition. The Tribunal found the Crown’s repeated failure to properly recognise and deal with the Kurahaupo iwi as the legitimate tangata whenua (alongside the northern tribes) of Te Tau Ihu to be a serious breach. It recommended that the Crown take steps to fully recognise and restore the mana of the Kurahaupo iwi.

The Tribunal recommended that the settlement of historical grievances relating to Wakatu Incorporation was most appropriately a matter to be concluded between the Crown and Te Tau Ihu iwi and that matters affecting the shareholders of Wakatu Incorporation since its establishment in 1977 should be resolved between the incorporation and the Crown. It recommended that the Crown enter into parallel negotiations with the Ngati Rarua Atiawa Iwi Trust, with a view to bringing the Whakarewa (Motueka) leases into line with the 1997 Maori reserved lands settlement.

The Tribunal’s report highlighted a number of shortcomings with respect to the current ‘offer-back’ regime under the Public Works Act 1981. It recommended amendments to the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 and the Public Works Act to address these issues.

The Tribunal also highlighted problems with resource and fishery management regimes and recommended changes and improvements to ensure that these regimes were more consistent with the Treaty. The Crown admitted that the Resource Management Act 1991 was not being implemented in a manner that provided fairly for Maori interests.

Finally, the Tribunal made recommendations with respect to the customary interests of Te Tau Ihu iwi within the statutorily defined Ngai Tahu takiwa. Te Tau Ihu iwi lost the ability to recover their interests in lands within the takiwa, which have been vested in Ngai Tahu as a result of earlier Crown settlement. The Tribunal strongly recommended that the Crown take urgent action to ensure that these breaches did not continue. It also recommended that the Crown negotiate with those Te Tau Ihu iwi identified in the report as having customary interests within the statutorily defined Ngai Tahu takiwa to agree on equitable compensation.

On 22 November 2008, the Waitangi Tribunal released its final report on the Treaty claims of iwi and hapu of Te Tau Ihu (northern South Island). The eight recognised iwi are Ngati Apa, Ngati Koata, Ngati Kuia, Ngati Rarua, Ngati Tama, Ngati Toa Rangatira, Te Atiawa, and Rangitane. The report had earlier been released as an incomplete pre-publication edition in order to help with the claimants in their settlement negotiations with the Crown.

The Tribunal inquiry panel comprised Maori land Court Deputy Chief Judge Wilson Isaac (presiding officer), Professor Keith Sorrenson, Pam Ringwood, and John Clarke. The late Rangitihi Tahuparae, a respected kaumatua of Whanganui, passed away on 2 October 2008 between the completion of the report and its publication.

In its report, the Tribunal found that many acts and omissions of the Crown breached the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. In particular, the Tribunal concluded that ownership of all but a tiny fraction of land in the Te Tau Ihu district was lost to Maori without first gaining their free, informed, and meaningful consent to the alienations. Nor did the Crown ensure that fair prices were paid and sufficient lands retained by the iwi for their own requirements.

The Tribunal finds that, contrary to Treaty principles, the Crown granted lands at Nelson and Golden Bay to the New Zealand Company without first ensuring that all customary owners were fairly dealt with. It then proceeded with its own large-scale Wairau and Waipounamu purchases, making predetermined decisions as to ownership which ignored the rights of many Te Tau Ihu Maori or left them with little meaningful choice over the alienation of their lands.

As a result, by as early as 1860 Te Tau Ihu Maori had lost most of their original estate. Thereafter, the Crown failed to actively protect their interests in those lands which remained to them. It also failed to protect their just rights and interests in valued natural resources. Despite petitions from Maori and repeated reports from its own officials, the Crown failed to protect or provide for Maori interests and rights in their customary fisheries and other resources. The result of these failures was grinding poverty, social dislocation, and loss of culture.

The Tribunal found that the totality of Treaty breaches were serious and caused significant social, economic, cultural, and spiritual prejudice to all iwi of Te Tau Ihu. These breaches, the Tribunal considered, required large and culturally appropriate redress.

In an attempt to assist Te Tau Ihu Treaty settlements, the Tribunal made several recommendations for remedies. Having regard in particular to the relatively even spread in terms of social and economic prejudice across all eight Te Tau Ihu iwi, the Tribunal recommended that the total quantum of financial and commercial redress be divided equally between them.

The Tribunal also recommended that site-specific cultural redress should be discussed collectively with all groups involved in Te Tau Ihu Treaty negotiations and that the unique claim of Ngati Apa, whose customary interests within Te Tau Ihu were never extinguished by any kind of deed of cession, needed special recognition. The Tribunal found the Crown’s repeated failure to properly recognise and deal with the Kurahaupo iwi as the legitimate tangata whenua (alongside the northern tribes) of Te Tau Ihu to be a serious breach. It recommended that the Crown take steps to fully recognise and restore the mana of the Kurahaupo iwi.

The Tribunal recommended that the settlement of historical grievances relating to Wakatu Incorporation was most appropriately a matter to be concluded between the Crown and Te Tau Ihu iwi and that matters affecting the shareholders of Wakatu Incorporation since its establishment in 1977 should be resolved between the incorporation and the Crown. It recommended that the Crown enter into parallel negotiations with the Ngati Rarua Atiawa Iwi Trust, with a view to bringing the Whakarewa (Motueka) leases into line with the 1997 Maori reserved lands settlement.

The Tribunal’s report highlighted a number of shortcomings with respect to the current ‘offer-back’ regime under the Public Works Act 1981. It recommended amendments to the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 and the Public Works Act to address these issues.

The Tribunal also highlighted problems with resource and fishery management regimes and recommended changes and improvements to ensure that these regimes were more consistent with the Treaty. The Crown admitted that the Resource Management Act 1991 was not being implemented in a manner that provided fairly for Maori interests.

Finally, the Tribunal made recommendations with respect to the customary interests of Te Tau Ihu iwi within the statutorily defined Ngai Tahu takiwa. Te Tau Ihu iwi lost the ability to recover their interests in lands within the takiwa, which have been vested in Ngai Tahu as a result of earlier Crown settlement. The Tribunal strongly recommended that the Crown take urgent action to ensure that these breaches did not continue. It also recommended that the Crown negotiate with those Te Tau Ihu iwi identified in the report as having customary interests within the statutorily defined Ngai Tahu takiwa to agree on equitable compensation.