Wai 215 #S56

IN THE WAITANGI TRIBUNAL

WAI 215

IN THE MATTER of the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975

AND

IN THE MATTER of the Tauranga Moana Inquiry

AND

IN THE MATTER of claims by Waiter Taipari (Wai 454) and Clive Majurey (Wai 812) on behalf of the Marutūāhu Confederation of Iwi (comprising Ngāti Maru, Ngāti Tamaterā, Ngāti Whanaunga and Ngāti Pāoa)

OPENING SUBMISSIONS OF COUNSEL FOR THE MARUTŪĀHU CLAIMANTS

(12 OCTOBER 2006)

RUSSELL McVEAGH

Paul F Majurey

Phone 64 9 367 8000

Fax 64 9 367 8163

PO Box 8

DX CX10085

Auckland

INTRODUCTION

1.As recorded in the Waitangi Tribunal’s Raupatu Report¹, Wai 454 and 812 are representative claims on behalf of the Marutūāhu confederation of tribes comprising Ngāti Tamaterā, Ngāti Maru, Ngāti Whanaunga and Ngāti Pāoa.²

2.Mr Tewi Nichols (Te Wiremu Mataia), who is giving evidence in support of the Marutūāhu claims, also lodged a claim on behalf of Ngāti Tamaterā.³

3.As confirmed by the Tribunal (in the Raupatu Report):⁴

“In their evidence and submissions to this inquiry, the Hauraki claimants [presenting a joint case at that hearing] emphasised Marutūāhu’s rights in Te Puna - Katikati ...”.

4.At this hearing, the Marutūāhu claimants and Hauraki Maori Trust Board are presenting separate cases in relation to:

>The Stage 2 (post - 1886) issues.

>Matters reserved by the Tribunal for discussion at this hearing, for example:⁵

“...Marutūāhu may wish to be heard further on the issue of the Crown-licensed Athenree Forest in our stage 2 inquiry if this takes place.”

5.It is noted that the name ‘Hauraki’ was occasionally used by the Tribunal in a synonymous way for the Marutūāhu tribes in its findings on customary interests within the inquiry district.⁶ This position is reflected in the following extracts from the Raupatu Report:

“We therefore recommend that the claims of Marutūāhu iwi within the Tauranga inquiry district which have been upheld in this report (see chs 7, 10) be included in negotiations that may arise from the Tribunal’s Hauraki inquiry.”⁷ [Emphasis added]

“What evidence we have heard suggests that Tauranga and Hauraki Maori shared customary interests in the [Athenree Forest] area roughly to the same extent ... and that the Treaty breaches arising from the Crown acquisition of the area affected the two groups in a similar measure (see ch7).”⁸ [Emphasis added]

¹Te Raupatu o Tauranga Moana (Report on the Tauranga Confiscation Claims) 2004 (Wai 215).

²Section 1.4.6 (1) - Raupatu Report.

³Section 1.4.6 (2) (page 17) - Raupatu Report.

⁴Section 1.4.6 (1) - Raupatu Report

⁵Section 3.4.2 (page 408) - Raupatu Report.

⁶See, for example, paragraph 13 - evidence of David Taipari (Wai 215 # S 30).

⁷See footnote 4.

⁸Section 13.4.3 (page 409) - Raupatu Report.

6.It is also noted that none of the Tribunal’s findings confirming the customary interests of the Marutūāhu tribes at Te Puna - Katikati were challenged in the Raupatu Report’s ‘Minority Opinion’.

STAGE 2 ISSUES

7.The Marutūāhu tribes are in a unique position at the Stage 2 inquiry - for they received no reserves from the Crown’s coerced acquisition of the Te Puna - Katikati blocks, nor received the wāhi tapu reserves promised by the Crown:⁹

“This disparity between the relatively large reserves awarded to the Ngāi Te Rangi chiefs and the virtually non-existent reserves awarded to Marutūāhu and the Ngāti Ranginui hapu is clear evidence of a failure to treat Maori equally according to their customary rights in Te Puna-Katikati.” [Emphasis added]

8.While Ngāti Ranginui received very little, the Marutūāhu tribes received no reserves at Te Puna - Katikati.¹⁰

9.The utter landlessness of the Marutūāhu people in that part of our rohe encompassed by the Tauranga Moana inquiry district set the platform for social, cultural and spiritual deprivation into the 20^th and 21^st centuries. This has taken the form of:

>Loss of resources, especially land.

>Loss of ability to fully undertake kaitiaki responsibilities for the taonga of the Marutūāhu people, especially wāhi tapu.

>Wiping us off the face of the earth in this part of our rohe in the minds of many, especially local and central government.

>Socio-economic deprivation as a result of all these factors. EVIDENCE

10.Evidence will be given on behalf of the Marutūāhu claimants by:

>Mr David Taipari.

>Mr William Peters.

>Mr Tewi Nicholls.

⁹Section 7.8 (page 200) - Raupatu Report.

¹⁰See, for example section 7.8 (page 200) - Raupatu Report.

11.There are sections of the evidence that cover ground from Stage 1, especially around the loss of customary land of the Marutūāhu. This is because the essence of the Marutūāhu case is that our present socio-economic deprivation is a direct consequence of all our land at Te Puna - Katikati having been ‘acquired by coercion’ and in breach of the Treaty of Waitangi (as confirmed in the Raupatu Report).

12.This landlessness and socio-economic deprivation is compounded when the wider position of the people of Marutūāhu and Pare Hauraki is taken into account. The Tribunal will recall the infamous statement in Mackay’s letter to Fitzgerald (of 16 September 1865):¹¹

“I may mention that I have through Te Moananui, and also personally, urged on the chief Taraia Ngakuti, and those members of the Ngāti Tamaterā tribe who have been in a state of semi-rebellion, the advisability of relinquishing their claims to the lands between Motukoura and Te Puna, as an atonement for the offences committed by them, as they have lost no land in the Thames District.” [Emphasis added]

13.The sick irony is that the Marutūāhu did lose all our land at Te Puna - Katikati, and did lose land in the ‘Thames District’ - almost all of it:¹²

“We have seen that Hauraki iwi are left with only about 2.6 per cent of the land in the claim area.”

“Land loss does not necessarily lead to poverty, but for Hauraki Maori that became the case.”

14.There are also sections of the evidence that address experiences outside this inquiry district, for example RMA matters. The sole reason for this is to inform the Marutūāhu claims by demonstrating the consequences of ongoing exclusion of the Marutūāhu at Te Puna - Katikati.

REMEDIES

15.In the Raupatu Report, the Tribunal left for a future time the exercise of its powers of remedy.

16.In the nearly five years since the completion of the Stage 1 hearings and the two years since the release of the Raupatu Report, there has been very little progress. The Crown has not:

>Recognised a negotiations mandate for any of the tribes of Tauranga Moana or Pare Hauraki; nor

>Returned any taonga to these tribes.

¹¹Wai 215# M9(a) - Document 15 (Volume 1 - Battersby Document Bank).

¹²Hauraki Report (Wai 686), pages 1163 and xivi.

17.For completeness, I also note:

>The Hauraki inquiry was completed in 2002 (having commenced in 1998).

>The Hauraki Report was released in June 2006.

>Deeds of mandate from both the Marutūāhu and HMTB are before the Crown (the final Marutūāhu deed was lodged with the Crown in December 2005).

>The Crown has not yet made a decision as to the recognition of these deeds of mandate.

18.The Marutūāhu claimants broadly signal the remedies they will be seeking that the Tribunal address in its Stage 2 report:

>The return of the wāhi tapu reserves promised by the Crown.

>The return of ‘Crown land and resources’ in the rohe of the Marutūāhu at Te Puna - Katikati.

>Central and local government recognition of the Marutūāhu in this part of our rohe.

>The return of the appropriate share of the Athenree forest lands and associated rental monies.

19.These issues will be amplified in closing submissions.

20.In conclusion, we welcome this opportunity to lay the Marutūāhu claims before the Tribunal in this inquiry.

Dated: 12 October 2006

Paul F Majurey

Counsel for the Marutūāhu Claimants