Rapua ngā tuhinga ruku tātari

Released in 2003, Te Whanganui a Tara me ona Takiwa: Report on the Wellington District is a report on 13 claims relating to the area covered by the New Zealand Company’s 1839 Port Nicholson deed of purchase, as extended in 1844 to the southwest coast. The inquiry area consists of the takiwa (district, or environs) of Te Whanganui a Tara (Wellington Harbour or Port Nicholson), including Wellington city and the Hutt Valley. The report deals with the complex process by which this land was acquired from Māori, and with issues relating to the administration and alienation of Māori reserves in the inquiry area.

The Tribunal originally constituted to hear the claims consisted of Bill Wilson (presiding), Professor Gordon Orr, and Georgina Te Heuheu, with Bishop Manuhuia Bennett joining the Tribunal shortly after the inquiry began, but Mr Wilson and Mrs Te Heuheu subsequently resigned from the Tribunal. As a result of these resignations, Professor Keith Sorrenson and John Clarke were added to the Tribunal, and Professor Orr took over as presiding officer. The claims were heard between 1991 and 1999. Sadly, Bishop Bennett died at the end of 2001, before the report was ready for release.

The Tribunal found that the 1839 deed by which the New Zealand Company purported to have purchased the Port Nicholson block was invalid, conferring no rights on the company or its settlers. However, from 1840, company settlers began arriving at Port Nicholson, and quickly came into conflict with local Māori, who discovered that land which they occupied and cultivated had been sold to settlers. Despite an investigation by a Crown-appointed land claims commissioner, which revealed many of the deficiencies in the company’s supposed purchase, the Crown agreed to a process whereby Māori would release their interests in 67,000 acres of land to the company in exchange for £1500 ‘compensation’. The Tribunal found that this process was deeply flawed, and was carried out without the informed consent of Maori .

Furthermore, in 1848 a Crown grant was issued to the company covering not just the 67,000 acres but the whole of the Port Nicholson block, said to contain around 209,000 acres. Māori retained only some 20,000 acres of reserves. This Crown grant deprived Māori of roughly 120,000 acres which they had never sold or consented to give up, and the Tribunal found this to be in breach of their Treaty rights.

Another issue covered in the report is the conflict over Heretaunga (the Hutt Valley). In the early 1840s, parts of Heretaunga were occupied by Ngāti Rangatahi and Ngāti Tama, who had close ties with Ngāti Toa of the Porirua area. Crown officials did not recognise the rights of Ngāti Rangatahi and Ngāti Tama in Heretaunga, where they were living on land claimed by the New Zealand Company and its settlers. Both groups were pressured into leaving the valley by Governor Grey in 1846, Ngāti Rangatahi leaving only under threat of attack by Crown forces. The Tribunal found that the Crown failed to recognise or protect the interests of Ngāti Rangatahi and Ngāti Tama, who were required to surrender their land without their free consent, and who received either inadequate compensation or, in Ngāti Rangatahi’s case, no compensation. In addition, the Tribunal found that the Crown failed adequately to recognise Ngāti Toa’s interests in the Port Nicholson block.

The report also deals with Māori reserves in Wellington. Part of the New Zealand Company’s original plan for the settlement of Port Nicholson was that a tenth of the land acquired by the company would be set aside as native reserves, which came to be known as ‘tenths’. The Crown subsequently assumed responsibility for these tenths reserves. Another category of reserves (known as ‘McCleverty reserves’ after the Crown official who set them aside for Māori) was placed under the direct control of Māori owners, and the bulk of the McCleverty reserves were later either sold or taken for public works. The tenths reserves, however, were administered by Government officials on behalf of the Wellington Māori who were the beneficial owners of these reserves. In 1851 and 1853, the Crown appropriated 23 acres of valuable urban tenths land as endowments for hospital, educational, and religious purposes. The Māori beneficial owners did not consent to these appropriations, received little benefit from the endowments, were not compensated until 1877, and even then received only inadequate compensation. The Tribunal found that these appropriations were in breach of Treaty principles.

For most of the twentieth century, the tenths reserves were placed under perpetually-renewable leases for 21-year terms, a system which effectively alienated this land from its Māori beneficial owners in perpetuity. Furthermore, the beneficial owners received below-market rents due to the setting of rents at a fixed percentage of the value of the land at the start of the 21-year term. This meant that rent could rise to reflect increased land values only once every 21 years. The legislation which imposed the perpetual leasing regime, without the consent of the Māori beneficial owners of the reserves, was found by the Tribunal to be in breach of the Treaty.

Other matters discussed in the report include the taking by the Crown of land for the town belt and other public reserves without the consent of, or payment to, Māori; the creation of reserves in Palmerston North for some Wellington Māori, to replace tenths reserves in Wellington which had been sold by the Crown; the taking of Māori reserved land for public works purposes; and issues relating to the management of Wellington harbour, including the reclamation of much of the harbour foreshore.

The Tribunal concluded that serious breaches of the Treaty by the Crown occurred in the Port Nicholson block, and that these Treaty breaches affected Te Atiawa, Ngāti Toa, Ngāti Tama, Ngāti Rangatahi, Taranaki, and Ngāti Ruanui. It recommended that representatives of these groups enter negotiations with the Crown to settle these Treaty grievances.

This report concerns a claim about the Government's proposed settlement with Ngati Tuwharetoa ki Kawerau.

This report is in response to claims relating to the development, finalisation, and implementation in the 1960s of the Tarawera Forest joint-venture scheme, a tripartite forestry scheme involving private enterprise (originally Tasman Pulp and Paper Company Limited), the Crown, and several thousand Maori. In essence, the claims assert that the Crown secured the involvement of the Maori participants in the scheme by means which were in breach of Treaty principles and which caused them prejudice. The relevant Treaty principles are those of active protection and partnership. The claimed prejudice is, first, the unnecessary and non-consensual loss from Maori ownership of more than 38,000 acres of land, including the sacred maunga Putauaki and, secondly, the loss of financial benefits that, it is said, should have been obtained from the joint venture by the Maori participants but were not.

The primary group of claimants (the Wai 411 claimants) represent the former owners of the 38,000 acres of Maori land and the current shareholders and debenture stock holders of Maori Investments Limited (MIL). MIL is a holding company created in 1968 for the specific purpose of administering the 10.8 percent stake in Tarawera Forests Limited (TFL) that was obtained by the former owners of the Maori land in return for contributing their land to the venture. Supporting the Wai 411 claim but focusing specifically on the loss of ownership of Putauaki were the Ngati Awa (Wai 46) claimants. The other claim reported on here (Wai 872) was made by an individual Wai 411 claimant during the course of the Tribunal's hearing.

A key feature of the Tarawera Forest joint venture was that ownership of the land contributed by the three venturers passed to TFL in return for a stake in that company. The claimants' land loss grievance rests on their view that the owners of the Maori land would have much preferred to lease it than lose title to it, and that a lease could have been achieved in place of the joint venture if only the Crown had acted consistently with its duty actively to protect Maori interests. Instead, the claimants allege, the Crown put its own interests ahead of those of the Maori landowners and secured their involvement in the joint venture by a variety of unfair tactics, the effect of which was that the Maori owners did not sufficiently understand or consent to the venture's terms. The sense of grievance that surrounds the loss from Maori to private ownership of such a large area of land, including the taonga Putuaki, is exacerbated by the fact that the Tarawera Forest joint-venture has proved to be a 'one-off' scheme. All other forestry projects utilising Maori land have involved leases, and some have enabled the Maori lessors to own the forest on their land at the end of the lease's term.

The claimant's second grievance is that the joint venture has not given to the Maori participants the returns promised to those who knew of it, let alone the returns that they claim would have been obtained if the venture had been negotiated fairly. At the heart of this grievance, too, is the view that the Crown put its own interests first and, by various unfair tactics, ensured that the Maori landowners became party to a venture on terms that were not to their greatest advantage.

The nature of the claims has required the Tribunal to undertake a detailed examination of the events surrounding the development and implementation of the Tarawera Forest joint venture. The first issue is the fairness, in terms of the Crown's obligations to protect Maori interests, of the process by which the joint venture was conceived and became a reality. The second issue is the attitude of the Crown throughout that process. We have found that the process followed in establishing the joint venture was inconsistent with what the Treaty principle requires of the Crown. We have also found, however, that the Crown was not motivated by bad faith in that process. Further, we are satisfied that the two claimant groups have been prejudiced by the loss of ownership of the former Maori land and the sacred mountain, and that the financial returns to MIL from the joint venture do not offset that loss. We are not satisfied, however, that the claimants have lost financial benefits due to them from their participation in the joint venture. Finally, we consider that the prejudice resulting from the loss of land ownership requires redress from the Crown, and we have made recommendations on that matter at the conclusion of this report.

The Wai 953 claimants represent Ngati Kahungunu, Ngati Whatua, Te Atiawa ki te Tau Ihu, Ngati Koata, Ngai Tahu, and Ngati Kuia. They claim to have a broad relationship with the coastal marine area and that as an incident of that relationship they have an interest in aquaculture, or more particularly marine farming.

The Tribunal was assisted by submissions from Te Ohu Kaimoana and the New Zealand Marine Farming Association.

The claimants alleged that they had been prejudicially affected by the proposals of the crown to reform the laws regulating aquaculture and in particular marine farming in New Zealand. They allege that these Crown actions amount to acts, policies, and practices in breach of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.

The Tribunal's focus during the inquiry was on the proposals for reform and not on the existing aquaculture regime. The concern was the discrete question of whether the proposed reforms were in breach of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. We also considered whether attempts made by the Crown, subsequent to the filing of these claims, addressed Maori issues adequately so as to discharge the Crown's duty actively to protect Maori interests.

In summary, this report found that Māori have an interest in marine farming that forms part of the bundle of Maori rights in the coastal marine area that represent a taonga protected by the Treaty of Waitangi. The Tribunal found that the proposed reforms do breach the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and the reasons for this are explained in chapter 6 and 7 of the report. The Tribunal also found that further consultation with Māori is needed to ascertain what should be done to ensure that their Treaty interests are adequately provided for. To facilitate this process the Tribunal recommended that the delay before the introduction of the Bill should be used by the Crown to establish a mechanism (resourced by the Crown) for consultation and negotiation with Māori including the claimants, facilitated by Te Ohu Kai Moana. The basis of consultation should be the existence of Treaty rights in the coastal space, which include rights, the extent of which are yet to be determined, to aquaculture and marine farming.

The parties should use the mechanism to discuss:

-a process for investigating the nature and extent of the Māori interest in marine farming;
-a process for agreeing on the mechanism needed to protect the Māori interest in marine farming, including a mechanism for preserving capacity to intervene once the full nature and and extent of that interest is defined;
-a process for ensuring appropriate Māori participation in the development of AMA areas and tendering process;
-a mechanism for preserving the Crown's capacity to meet its Treaty obligations in the short term, until such time as the longer planning issues are dealt with.

The Tribunal found that since the claims are well-founded, the recommendation is for payment by the Crown of the claimants' reasonable costs and expenses.

The Tribunal also indicated that the claimants have leave without further application for urgency, to return to the Tribunal should they have concerns that these matters have not been addressed properly after any legislation has been enacted.

In March 1997, Dame Augusta Wallace was appointed presiding officer for the Waitangi Tribunal’s inquiry into the Kaipara district, and the remaining members of this Tribunal were appointed in June 1997. The records of inquiry of various claims relating to the Kaipara region were combined under the reference number Wai 674 in July 1997. The inquiry district was divided into three areas (stages 1, 2, and 3), to be heard in sequence. Hearings for stage 1 claims commenced in August 1997 and continued until June 1998. The main Te Uri o Hau claims (Wai 229 and Wai 271) were heard by the Tribunal in stage 1. While this stage of the inquiry was in progress, counsel for Wai 229 and Wai 271 made a series of submissions asking the Tribunal to issue an interim report at the completion of the stage 1 hearings. The claimants sought an interim report or preliminary indications from the Tribunal, with a view to entering into direct negotiations with the Crown for the settlement of their claims as soon as possible.

Claims in the Kaipara inquiry fall into three categories:

• those historical claims which will be settled as soon as the Te Uri o Hau Claims Settlement Bill is enacted;
• those claims which are part of the Kaipara inquiry but have not been heard by the Tribunal; and
• those claims which have been heard by the Tribunal but are not included in the Te Uri o Hau settlement.

The reasons for the Kaipara Tribunal's decision to issue this interim report are set out in the following memorandum, which was originally intended for the relevant Ministers:

The members of the Tribunal constituted to hear the Kaipara claims met on 1 May and 6 June 2002, and, after lengthy discussion, unanimously reached the following conclusions. One member was absent from the meetings, but has separately signified his agreement to this memorandum.

1. The Waitangi Tribunal is a permanent commission of inquiry with a statutory responsiblity to inquire into Maori claims of breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi.

2. Independent of the Tribunal process, the Crown reserves to itself the power to negotiate directly with Maori claimants.

3. Before this Tribunal has reported on the Kaipara claims (including Te Uri o Hau claims as defined in the Te Uri o Hau Claims Settlement Bill), the Crown has chosen to negotiate separately with Te Uri o Hau, in isolation from all the other Kaipara claims.

4. The Te Uri o Hau Claims Settlement Act, when passed, will exclude the Tribunal from jurisdiction in relation to those Te Uri o Hau claims.

5. In this Tribunal's view, generic grievances, in relation to which the Crown has admitted culpability in the Te Uri o Hau Settlement, are common to claims throughout the whole Kaipara inquiry district.

6. These generic grievances could be the basis for negotiations and settlements of claims throughout the region. While the Tribunal exercises a separate jurisdiction, it believes that it could be in the interests of other Kaipara claimants for the Crown to enter into direct negotiations with them. In making this statement, this Tribunal is mindful of the dictates of natural justice and the need for that to be perceived by all.

7. Were the Kaipara Tribunal to report on those generic grievances, it would find itself, in general terms, in sympathy with the acknowledgements of Treaty breaches which the Crown has made in the Te Uri o Hau settlement.

8. As soon as possible, the Tribunal intends to publish a brief report of its interim findings in relation to those generic grievances in respect of all Kaipara claims, excepting only Te Uri o Hau claims (as defined above). The Tribunal is aware that this might assist Kaipara claimants and the Crown, should the parties wish to negotiate directly.

9. The Tribunal will consider whether to report finally, in its usual manner, on the Kaipara claims, or any part thereof (other than Te Uri o Hau claims), on application to this Tribunal by the Crown or claimants. Such an application will be notified to all parties to the Kaipara inquiry.

10. The Kaipara Tribunal takes this somewhat unusual course in this inquiry due to the particular circumstances that have arisen following direct Crown negotiations and settlement with Te Uri o Hau, in isolation from the rest of the Kaipara claims, and in advance of the Tribunal reporting. This situation of dual or competing processes occurring in tandem has caused the Tribunal to consider the matter at length. While not vacating its statutory jurisdiction, the Kaipara Tribunal is proposing this course of action in an endeavour to be practical and fair to all parties.

Before this memorandum could be sent to the Ministers, the announcement of a general election on 27 July 2002 was made, and the memorandum was held over for the incoming Government. The Tribunal decided to proceed with its intention of issuing a brief report of its interim findings in respect of generic issues acknowledged by the Crown in the Te Uri o Hau Claims Settlement Bill.

This report concerns claims about the terms of a settlement offer made to Ngati Awa by the Government.

Two days of hearing for the Paraninihi ki Waitotara Incorporation (PKW) claim regarding changes to the dairy industry were held on 12 and 13 November 2001. The Tribunal's report was released before Christmas 2001.

The claim had four separate aspects to it. The Tribunal did not uphold the the first three points of claim. The Tribunal did not agree that the creation of Fonterra would necessarily cause the relative value of PKW's unimproved land to decrease; did not agree that the rental income from PKW's land necessarily would be of less value; and did not agree that the relative cost of exercising the right of first refusal to buy out perpetual leases would necessarily increase.

However, the Tribunal did uphold the fourth point of claim – that the cost of entering the dairy industry has increased – and recommended that the Government should guarantee a loan to enable PKW to purchase shares to supply Fonterra, so that PKW would be able to enter the dairy industry in an equitable manner.

The Tribunal found this was particularly necessary because the Crown had ignored repeated recommendations from various inquiries and commissions since the confiscation of Taranaki land to provide remedies for the problems created by confiscation, and by the subsequent establishment of perpetual leases of returned lands. The Tribunal considered that the failure to provide such remedies created an even more compelling need for the Crown to do so urgently: 'we regard the wilful and repeated turning of the Crown's face from its Treaty obligations and breaches as a further breach in itself'.

The Tribunal considered that the Crown should have at the very least acted immediately on the recommendations of the Tribunal's 1991 Ngai Tahu Report regarding perpetual leasing and the Māori Reserved Land Act 1955:

having ignored the [1975] Sheehan report, the Crown should, at the very least, have given the matter urgent attention and provided a fulsome remedy when the implications of the finding of the ‘Ngai Tahu Report’ were apparent, and had the strong words in the 1987 judgment of the Court of Appeal been taken to heart.

This claim was separated from the large group of Hauraki claims because it dealt with the contemporary issue of the management of the Hauraki Gulf rather than with the historical grievances of the Hauraki people.

The claimants believed that the Crown had established a management regime under the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 that was inconsistent with its duties of active protection of their rangatiratanga and kaitiakitanga. They asserted that their claims to customary title and rights in the foreshore and seabed were prejudiced by this Act.

The Tribunal acknowledged the considerable area of agreement between the claimants and the Crown on the need to enhance preservation and protection of the Hauraki Gulf. There was also agreement that a forum, where tangata whenua and territorial authorities could regularly meet to monitor the development of the park and formulate policy, was a sound idea. The Tribunal accepted that the iwi represented by the Hauraki Māori Trust board are tangata whenua of Tikapa Moana.

‘However the physical boundaries of the park are greater than the rohe of Hauraki iwi represented by the Board, and include other groups who can equally claim to be tangata whenua of the park. As part of its Treaty obligations, the Crown must include those tangata whenua in the Hauraki Gulf Forum, and it has done so.’
The Waitangi Tribunal

The Tribunal did not see any fundamental Treaty breach in the legislation per se. It made no specific findings as it was not convinced that the Hauraki iwi had been prejudiced by the passing of the Hauraki Marine Park Act 2000.

‘We would encourage all parties to focus on what they agree on: the need for the Hauraki Gulf environment to be protected for future generations. This is the spirit and intention of the Act, which provides a framework for all parties to work together towards this common goal.’
The Waitangi Tribunal

The Tribunal did not revisit the general issues surrounding the closure of Napier Hospital. Neither did they consider the merits of restoring Napier Hospital to its former status. That was not a remedy the claimants were seeking.
—Deputy Chief Judge Isaac

The claim required the Tribunal to look at the historical context of hospital services in Napier from 1851 to 1940 and in particular the promise of a hospital to Ahuriri Māori in 1851. The Tribunal found that there was widespread and severe ill health, and the impact of introduced diseases, was a principle cause of the crisis of survival which saw a halving of the national Māori population during the half century after 1840. Ahuriri Māori did not escape, and in the 1930s their health status still lagged far behind that of Pakeha:

Whether the health status of Ahuriri Māori has improved or worsened over the last decade, the disparity in health status between Ahuriri Maori and non-Maori has shown little if any reduction and has remained markedly adverse. For many Ahuriri Maori the health outcomes remain poor. A significant proportion of the ill health suffered by Ahuriri Maori was preventable, and not prevented.

The Tribunal looked at a number of issues that arose during the 1980s and 1990s in its report. These issues included consultation with Ahuriri Māori on decisions affecting the status of Napier Hospital with decisions to regionalise hospital services in Hastings and downgrade or close Napier Hospital. Representation at decision making levels was another issue where the Crown was in breach of the principle of partnership with an imbalance of Māori representation on the Hawke’s Bay Hospital Board. Neither was there sufficient participation by Māori to sustain the Māori Health Unit’s objectives.

The Tribunal recommended a community health centre governed by trustees on behalf of Ahuriri Māori and bicultural in character, serving the special needs of Ahuriri Māori but open to all. It suggested that the centre should function as an integrated care organisation providing a variety of primary, public, promotional, educational, and rongoa Māori services.

The Tribunal recommended that the Crown take early steps to conclude an agreement in principle with the claimants on the concept, and that the Napier Hospital site should be transferred to the Residual Health Management Unit and the proceeds be vested in trust, for the purpose of endowering the community health centre.

   ‘With hindsight, the Moriori claim deserved an early hearing in the Tribunal’s process, for it raised issues at the frontier of our modern government. A just conclusion to recent warfare was an issue squarely before Maori and the Governor when the Treaty of Waitangi was signed, and the issue shed light on a major purpose of the Treaty: to ensure justice for all people.’

    Justice Durie

The raft of issues considered in the Rekohu Report are unique and complex, and a thorough reading of the entire report is necessary to gain a full understanding of the context of the claims and the ensuing recommendations of the Tribunal.

The report looks closely at the period soon after the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840 and the annexation of Rekohu in 1842. Some of the main findings of the Tribunal’s report are that:

The Native Land Court adopted criteria set by the Crown that were inadequate in Treaty terms when it excluded Moriori from ownership of any but the main island, and in that case awarding 97 per cent of the land to Ngati Mutunga and only 3 per cent to Moriori. The Tribunal considered the awards were patently wrong and that Moriori were entitled to at least 50 per cent.

The ancestral right to land was with Moriori. Maori were recent invaders.

The Tribunal did not accept the Crown’s argument that Maori agreed to land tenure reform proposing individual ownership, individual share trading, or Native Land Court control of title devolution and succession.

The Tribunal recommended that compensation is due to Ngati Mutunga for the lasting impact of the Crown’s policy on tenure reform.

The Tribunal has proposed a new indigenous land law for Rekohu which would be the modern equivalent for the customary ethic with land titles held in trust by a runanga (formed along traditional lines) which allocated long-term occupation rights. The Runanga would provide facilities for visiting relatives out of the rents among other things. The Tribunal recommends that the Crown fund a body to promote the development of a new Maori land law specific to the Chathams.

The issue of slavery as a result of the invasion of Rekohu by Ngati Tama and Ngati Mutunga in 1835 was an issue ended in the mainland of New Zealand by 1839. This was not so in Rekohu where it continued for 20 years after annexation without Crown intervention. The Tribunal found that the failure of the Crown to intervene cost Moriori many lives, and prejudiced later land claims

The Tribunal in the Chatham Islands inquiry was also asked to look at a number of contemporary issues including the Tribunal's jurisdiction, the status of Moriori and their right to make claims under the Treaty of Waitangi, health and education, conservation management, fishing, and the ownership of Te Whaanga lagoon.

    ‘The scientific evidence is compelling: Moriori are the same people as Maori but, through isolation, they are unique as a Maori tribe.’

    Waitangi Tribunal