The Claims

THE HAURAKI TREATY CLAIMS

VOLUME 1

Hauraki Maori Trust Board

The Claims

HAURAKI MAORI TRUST BOARD

1997

The logo reflects a number of meanings. It is reflective of Tikapa Moana which is of great significance to Hauraki. The four waves or koru symbolise Te Taha Tinana, Hinengaro, Wairua and Whanau, the basis for a balanced life. They seek the pathway into the future. A movement forward.

When seen in colour, blue represents the moana. Red is symbolic of the blood that was spilt into Tikapa and the white symbolic of minerals.

First published in 1997 by
Hauraki Maori Trust Board
PO Box 33, Paeroa
Aotearoa New Zealand

ISBN 1-877198-00-5

© Hauraki Maori Trust Board

All rights reserved.
No part of this publication may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means,
electronic, mechanical, including photocopying, recording or otherwise,
without the prior permission of the publisher.

Typeset by Wordset Enterprises Limited, Wellington
Printed by GP Print, Wellington, New Zealand

E mihi tenei kia ratou nga rangatira kua wehea atu ki te po. Na ratou o aua wa i whakatakototia te kaupapa e pa ana ki o ratou taonga tuku iho.

Na ratou te kakano i ruia.

Na to ratou tohetohe waiho ma tenei whakatupuranga hei puawaitia o ratou moemoea.

This is a tribute to those rangatira who have now passed on. They, who in their time established the principles relating to the recovery of their possessions. So has the seed been sown.

Because of their unyielding belief, let those

of this generation give substance to their dreams.

FOREWORD

Nga Puke Ki Hauraki

Ka Tarehua

E Mihi ana Ki te Whenua

E Tangi ana Ki te Tangata

Ko Moehau Ki Waho

Ko Te Aroha Ki Uta

Tikapa te Moana

Hauraki te Whenua

Marutuahu te Tangata

Tihei Mauriora!

Na nga ohaki i waihotia ake e o tatou matua tipuna i roto i a ratou moteatea, i nga waiata,
i a ratou korero me a ratou mahi hoki, i mau tonu ai te mahara i roto i o tatou hinengaro,
te mamae i roto i o tatou ngakau. Na enei taonga tuku iho, i pumau tonu ai te kaha o o
tatou pukenga, o to tatou iwi hoki ki te kohikohi i a ratou korero i roto i te tekau tau, kia
tutuki ai nga rangahau.

Ko enei nga pukapuka tekau ma tahi mo te kereme WAI 100, hei tautoko i te tono a to
tatou matua, rangatira, a Te Huhurere Tukukino, ki te Taraipiunara o Waitangi. Kua whakatakatoria i roto i enei pukapuka, a ratou titiro i te ao i tera wa, i te tangohanga o nga whenua o Hauraki.

Na Te Poari Maori o Hauraki me nga kai-hautu i whakatakoto a ratou titiro, hei whakatutuki i nga ohaki a ratou ma, kia to rangatira ai a tatou i runga i o tatou whenua

tipuna.

This year the Hauraki tribes take an important step forward in the resolution of Hauraki's land claims. Eleven volumes of historical research are being lodged with the
Waitangi Tribunal. This research represents the culmination of a decade of sustained
effort by members of Hauraki iwi and other specialists to gather the information to
support Huhurere Tukukino's WAI100 claim. These volumes relate, with firm intent, the historical alientation of Hauraki lands.

The history of Hauraki's claims stretches back a long way. Our ancestors, through song
and verse, oratory and deed, have revealed these truths to us that are now deeply ingrained in us all. With this knowledge at hand, I for one, as a small boy, clearly remember following my father from hui to hui called by our people to discuss possible
remedies for injuries sustained by Hauraki as a result of the ceded lands and goldfields
leases.

When the WAI 100 claim was lodged by Tukukino on behalf of the Hauraki tribes in
April 1987, the nature of the grievances had not changed in over 130 years, nor had the desire of the people to see these finally settled. Even today, though many of the faces and

V

identities are different, the goal remains the same. We want the mana over our whenua restored.

These volumes lay the foundation of the Hauraki case. They support four claims taken by the Hauraki Maori Trust Board, among these being the WAI 100 claim, and over 30 other claims. They testify to the dedication and energy of those since passed and those still among us.

These volumes we leave as a legacy to our children and the Hauraki tribal nation. We entrust this information to the Tribunal in order that the Hauraki tribes may yet obtain justice in this matter.

Toko Renata Te Taniwha

HAURAKI MAORI TRUST BOARD

VI

CONTENTS

FOREWORD .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. v

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 1

The Claims .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 1

The Tribal Estate .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 3

Research and Evidence .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 5

The Themes .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 5

Land Alienation .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 7

The Process .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 18

Hauraki Maori Trust Board .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 18

CHAPTER 2: STATEMENT OF CLAIM . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 21

1. Timatanga—Preamble .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 22

2. Te Ture—Jurisdiction .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 24

3. Nga Hara—The Grievances .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 25

CHAPTER 3: THE CLAIMS .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 49

CHAPTER 4: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 83

APPENDICES

1.  Hauraki Maori Trust Board Act 1988.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 87

2.  Mandate for Prosecution of Hauraki Claims by Hauraki Maori Trust Board .. 89

TAB LE

1. Alienated Land and Maori Land 140-1997.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 8

PHOTOGRAPH

Hauraki from Space .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .... .. .. .. .. 2

MAPS

1.   Haurak Region .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 4

2.   Alienation of Maori Land by Crown Purchase and Confiscations at 1865 .. .. .. 9

3.   Alienation of Maori Land at 1875 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 10

4.   Alienation of Maori Land at 1885 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 11

5.   Alienation of Maori Land at 1890 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 12

6.   Alienation of Maori Land at 1906 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 13

7.   Alienation of Maori Land at 1912 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 14

8.   Alienation of Maori Land at 1939 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..15

9.   Maori Land at 1997 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 16

10.   The Hauraki Raupatu .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 17

11.   Dispersal of Hauraki Tribes c. 1840 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 20

VII

Chapter
INTRODUCTION

The Claims

The Hauraki Treaty Claims comprise four separate claims managed by the Hauraki Maori Trust Board. These are WAI 100, WAI 373, WAI 374 and WAI 650. They were filed between 1987 and 1996 under the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975.

The WAI 100 claim is a comprehensive and overarching claim covering all of the traditional Hauraki rohe (territory). It was filed in 1987 by the late Mr Huhurere Tukukino and 35 tribal members. He subsequently asked the Hauraki Maori Trust Board to bring this claim before the Waitangi Tribunal on behalf of himself and all the Hauraki people.

Since then the Board, in its own right, has lodged three specific claims regarding the lands and forests at Maramarua and Athenree as well as railway land in central Auckland. The revised statement of claim set out in Chapter Two elaborates and refines the four claims mentioned above.

The key issues of the WAI 100 claim are:

•  land confiscation in the east Wairoa block on the western side of the Firth of Thames, near Maramarua and the Piako, near Te Aroha and Katikati;

•  Crown policies operated through the Native Land Court to acquire the land, the pre-1865 and old land claims as well as various twentieth century practices including the Public Works Act;

•  ownership of all minerals, geothermal resources and hot springs, the failure to fulfil the terms of the original mining agreements including the recovery of financial compensation;

•  ownership and management of the foreshore;

•  the destruction of natural resource habitat such as streams, rivers and wetlands, and excessive pollution leading to destruction of traditional food sources;

•  the return of specific parcels of land such as Crown forests and other land taken under legislation such as the Public Works Act, and the Hauraki Plains Drainage Act, and for reclamation works, roads and other infrastructure services now no longer used for the original purpose;

•  the destruction of sacred places and the acquisition of Maori heritage or cultural property;

Chapter I: Introduction

•  cultural breakdown, and social deprivation in health, education, and welfare;

•  economic disadvantage including the loss of land taken in lieu of rates by local authorities;

•  the failure to provide adequate land reserves to meet immediate Hauraki needs.

Other Maori (individuals, whanau, hapu, iwi) from the region have lodged general and specific claims in their own right. There are also a small number of claims from non-Hauraki Maori concerning the Hauraki geographic region and its resources. Taking all these claims together, a search of the Waitangi Tribunal register in September 1997, reveals that there are approximately 45 claims concerning the Hauraki tribal estate.

The Tribal Estate

The tribal estate is an holistic concept encompassing the sky above and the earth below, Ranginui and Papatuanuku and everything which lies between the two. The Hauraki tribal rohe covers a land area of about 1,500,000–1,850,000 acres or 650,000–750,000 hectares in addition to the off-shore islands in the Hauraki Gulf: The meaning of land includes all that lies beneath the surface (for example, the minerals, geothermal resources, and hot springs) as well as the forests, farms, settlements and cultural property which are on the surface. The seaward area, known as Tikapa Moana, of approximately 91,509 square kilometres incorporates all the foreshore and coastline, most of the Hauraki Gulf to the north of Auckland, the Firth of Thames and parts of the north-eastern Bay of Plenty, out to the 200 mile economic zone of New Zealand. Hauraki from space, a photographic mosaic taken by satellite that depicts the region can be seen on p. 2.

Hauraki forms the eastern boundary of the Tainui waka domains. The peninsula is the figurative ama (outrigger) of the canoe with its prow located at Mt Te Aroha and the stern-piece at Mt Moehau. In terms of Te Ikaroa a Maui (North Island of New Zealand), Hauraki tradition likens the North Island to the whai (stingray). The upoko (head of the fish) is Wellington, the long narrow hiku (tail) extends to Northland. Taranaki and the east cape define the spread out wings and the Hauraki Peninsular is known as Te Tara-o-Te-Ika (the jagged barb), thrusting into the Hauraki Gulf and the Pacific.1

The Hauraki kaumatua, Mr Taimoana Turoa, has described the tribal boundaries in a general manner, as being spread like a net.

The peripheral boundary of the Hauraki can generally be described as commencing at the sunken reefs of Nga Kuri-a-Wharei offshore of Waihi on the eastern coast, progressing west inland to Mount Te Aroha, thence to Hoe-o-Tainui. It then follows north along the range line of to Hapu-a-Kohe and the Hunua Ranges to Moumoukai and Papakura. The northern boundary includes parts of the Tamaki isthmus, Takapuna, Whangaparaoa and Mahurangi before terminating at Matakana river estuary south of Cape Rodney. The seaward boundary includes parts of the island of Aotea (Great Barrier), and then southward to its beginning at

1 Taimoana Turoa, Nga Iwi o Hauraki, The Iwi of Hauraki, Hauraki Maori Trust Board, Paeroa, 1997

3

Chapter I: Introduction

Nga Kuri-a-Wharei. Included in those margins are the inner gulf islands of Tikapa Moana and those (except for Tuhua island) offshore of the eastern coastline of Te Tai Tamawahine.2

He is careful to point out that these boundaries are not to be reduced to straight lines. There is in the outer areas an intermingling of related tribes and sub-tribes. Within Hauraki the weaving of the net takes on special meaning as iwi (tribes) and hapu (sub-tribes) have firmly established settlements within each other's territories without the loss of their individual identity. The custom is that intermarriage requires affiliation with the tribe resident on the ancestral land.3

The key interrelationships of this geography and the symbolic orientation of Hauraki with Mt Te Aroha at the prow and Mt Moehau at the stern of the waka are portrayed in the 3D map of the region.

Research and Evidence

The Hauraki Treaty Claims project has examined the nature and extent of the interaction of Maori with the Crown in the Hauraki tribal territory during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The four claims mentioned above, together with the research and supporting evidence, are set out in ii volumes.

The history of colonisation in Hauraki—the deliberate policies of the Crown leading to the social and economic deprivation endured by those who have gone before us and their years of responsible protest—has not been told before. These volumes, the foundation of the Hauraki case, will forever rewrite our nation's history books, contributing, only now, a Maori perspective to the history of this region.

It is expected that this research and supporting evidence will be of use to other Hauraki claimants. To a considerable extent many of the other claims currently registered with the Waitangi Tribunal provide particular examples that reinforce the breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi detailed here.

The information in these II volumes also serves other purposes:

•  as a historical resource base for tangata whenua;

•  for study and teaching;

•  to encourage greater public understanding of the Maori perspective.

The Themes

Each of the II volumes of The Hauraki Treaty Claims deals with a particular theme.

Volume I The Claims sets out the revised statement of claim together with introductory remarks, a copy of the original claims and specific acknowledgment of all those who have assisted the research to date.

2   Ibid.

3   Ibid.

5

THE CLAIMS

Volume 2 Nga Iwi o Hauraki, The Iwi of Hauraki is a rich storehouse of matauranga (knowledge) about the tribal histories and whakapapa within Hauraki. It provides a platform and context to enable the detailed iwi, hapu, and whanau histories and customs to be described by the appropriate representatives in the course of the Waitangi Tribunal hearings.

Volume 3 Archaeology in the Hauraki Region: A Summary provides a comprehensive summary of Maori society in Hauraki before the influx of European settlers, the economy that existed then and the places where that activity occurred. Archaeological sites are shown on maps and the use of natural resources (in particular, minerals) is well documented.

Volume 4 The Crown, The Treaty, and The Hauraki Tribes, 1800–1885 examines the material destruction of the Hauraki resource base—the tribal loss of land and the loss of control over minerals, timber, rivers and foreshore. This destruction is placed in the context of the disparity between the promises and the actions of the Crown, the calculated nature of Government dealings in Hauraki, and the protests of Hauraki Maori faced with the deliberate undermining of tino rangatiratanga.

Volume 5 The Crown, The Treaty, and The Hauraki Tribes, 1800–1885, Supporting Papers contains the essential reference material to substantiate Dr Anderson's work. In addition it contains reference material in relation to a report about the Activities of the Trust Commissioner. The Trust Commissioner report is included as an appendix to The Crown, The Treaty and the Hauraki Tribes 1800–1885.

Volume 6 The Crown, The Treaty, and the Hauraki Tribes, 1880–1980 examines the Crown's systematic dismantling of the original agreements it made with Maori and the laws it contrived to alienate Maori land. The rentless pace of land loss continued during the period 1880-1980. By 1912 only 13% of the Hauraki tribal territory remained Maori land—today that proportion has reduced to 2.6%. The report documents one of the worst cases of Maori landlessness in New Zealand. It describes how Maori interests were sacrificed to make way for the development of natural resources and the infrastructure supporting growing Hauraki settlements. Land was taken for drainage schemes, river improvements, settlement schemes, railways, roads and town development under the Public Works Act. The promise of partnership, with social and economic betterment for Maori, did not materialise.

Volume 7 The Crown, The Treaty, and the Hauraki Tribes, 1880–1980, Supporting Papers contains the reference material to support the main findings as well as further information on the use of the Public Works Act.

Volume 8 The Hauraki Tribal Lands, Parts 1–4 provides detailed analysis of the dealings relating to the original Maori land blocks. This involved over 700 parcels of land and most of the tribal territory. The focus has been on those initial transactions involving the Crown and private individuals so that one can see the pattern of Crown activity that emerges over the past 150 years leading to a situation where at present 2.6% of the

6

Chapter I: Overview and Argument

Hauraki tribal territory is Maori land.

Volume 9 The Hauraki Tribal Lands Supporting Papers, Parts .1–28 contains over 14,000 pages of letters, deeds, plans, Maori Land Court minute book records and much more to support the analysis of David Alexander's report.

Volume 10 The Social and Economic Situation of Hauraki Maori After Colonisation provides a careful analysis of the plight of Hauraki Maori describing the inequitable provision of health and education, combined with almost complete landlessness, leading to the persistent deprivation and poverty faced by Maori.

Volume II The Economic Impoverishment of Hauraki Maori Through Colonisation .1830–1930 examines the destruction of the pre-European economy by colonial economic processes, aided and abetted by Government officials, creating a situation whereby Maori became paupers in their own land. The resulting economic distress and deprivation has lasted for generations.

Land Alienation

Of the original tribal estate there is about 2.6% or 38,500 acres remaining in Maori ownership. This is managed by small to medium-sized Trusts although there are four entities which own and manage large land holdings on behalf of their beneficial shareholders. These are at Kennedy Bay, Manaia, Pakirarahi and Mataroa near Waihi. Maori-owned land in 1997 is shown in map 9.

In a 1997 report by the Waitangi Tribunal it was found that in comparison with other areas in the North Island, on a per capita basis, Hauraki Maori were the most land-short, followed by those in Taranaki, Waikato, then Auckland.4 The pattern of land alienation from 1865 to 1997 is shown in maps 2 to 9. During this period about 80% of the land alienated was acquired by the Crown and 20% acquired through private land purchases.

The time sequence depicted by these maps has been made possible by the analysis of over 700 parcels of land which forms Volume 8. About 7% of the tribal territory was not covered by the research. At this stage what happened to this proportion of the land cannot be shown with a high degree of confidence. However, much of it along the banks of the Waihou River was acquired by private individuals early in the nineteenth century.

Some of the tribal territory was affected by outright confiscation by the Crown stemming from the land wars in the 1860s. In the debates at the time, the Government officials had intended to take the whole of the Thames and Piako districts. In the event, about 205,000 acres or 14% of the tribal territory was subject to confiscation by the Crown. This is shown in map 10.

4 A. Ward, 'National Overview', vol I, Waitangi Tribunal Rangahaua Whanui Series, Wellington, 1997, p. II.

7

THE CLAIMS

The proportion of alienated land and Maori land in the period 1840–1997 is shown in the table below.

TABLE I: ALIENATED LAND AND MAORI LAND 1840–1997

The pattern of Maori land alienation depicted in the time sequence maps has been derived from a computerised mapping database especially developed for this project. This database was developed using the research into the block histories which are contained in Volume

8 Parts 1–4. In addition other published sources provided supplementary information on old land claims and land affected by confiscation. The Ministry of Maori Affairs provided data on the existing Maori customary and freehold land in 1997.

The mapping database enables a wide range of information to be depicted for any period and modern information can be shown as layers on top of the historical base. Accompanying the research reports are large multi-coloured wall charts showing the alienation of Maori land from 1840. All the small land block maps used in Volume 8 Parts 1–4 are derived from this mapping database.

5 Data used for 1939 is sourced from the 1940 Historical Atlas project (now held in the Alexander Turnbull Library map collection).

6 Data supplied by the Ministry of Maori Development in 1997 enabled existing Maori customary and freehold land to be identified independently of the research and land block analysis carried out under the Hauraki Treaty Claims research project.

8

Chapter 1: Overview and Argument

MAP 2: ALIENATION OF MAORI LAND BY CROWN PURCHASES AND CONFISCATIONS AT 1865

9

THE CLAIMS

MAP 3: ALIENATION OF MAORI LAND AT 1875

10

Chapter 1: Overview and Argument

MAP 4: ALIENATION OF MAORI LAND AT 1885

11

THE CLAIMS

MAP 5: ALIENATION OF MAORI LAND AT 1890

12

Chapter 1: Overview and Argument

MAP 6: ALIENATION OF MAORI LAND AT 1906

13

THE CLAIMS

MAP 7: ALIENATION OF MAORI LAND AT 1912

14

Chapter 1: Overview and Argument

MAP 8: ALIENATION OF MAORI LAND AT 1939

Source: Centennial Historical Atlas Collection, Alexander Turnbull Library, CHA 6/2/8, 1939

15

THE CLAIMS

MAP 9: MAORI LAND AT 1997

16

Chapter 1: Overview and Argument

MAP 10: THE HAURAKI RAUPATU

Source: Roll Plan 39 & B43

17

THE CLAIMS

The Process

The Waitangi Tribunal is a specialist commission of inquiry that will rigorously test the claims brought before it. In due course it will issue its findings into the claims. It is expected this process will take at least a year. Following the findings, Maori and the Crown will be in a better position to negotiate a settlement and redress package that resolves Maori grievances.

The general community may feel some apprehension and uncertainty about the treaty settlement process. The majority do want to see these grievances settled, believe in fairness and want to look to positive future development. We need patience, tolerance, vision, generosity, statesmanship and more to successfully deal with these issues so that we leave a better legacy for our children. There is a danger of polarising views to such an extent that racism and conflict emerge. Community leaders have a responsibility to manage this situation for the benefit of all who live in Aotearoa. As a result of the other treaty settlements, such as Ngai Tahu and Waikato, there is a growing appreciation in the community, that Maori and Pakeha alike can look forward to the social and economic benefits that treaty settlements bring to a region. New business and employment opportunities and a reduction in negative social statistics are likely. The benefits derived from Maori ownership of resources such as land, forests and fisheries are likely to remain in the Hauraki region for the long-term benefit of all citizens.

Hauraki Maori Trust Board

The Hauraki Maori Trust Board was established by Act of Parliament in 1988. (This is reproduced as Appendix 1.) This followed a period of at least three years when the people of Hauraki attended numerous hui at Harataunga, Manaia, Thames, Paeroa,Tirohia, Te Aroha and Whakatiwai to discuss the merits of establishing an iwi authority in the region. At the time the Maori Trust Boards Act 1955 seemed the most suitable mechanism to use to set up the governing body. In recent years this legislation has been reviewed and changes are proposed which will enable greater flexibility in the type of organisational structure available to Maori.

Section 4 of the Hauraki Maori Trust Board Act 1988 provides that the descendants of the following tribes are the beneficiaries of the Board: Ngati Maru, Ngati Paoa, Ngati Tamatera, Ngati Whanaunga, Ngati Hako, Ngati Hei, Patukirikiri, Ngai Tai, Ngati Tara Tokanui, Ngati Rahiri Tumutumu, Ngati Porou ki Harataunga ki Mataora and Ngati Pukenga ki Waiau. The general location of these iwi c. 1840 is shown on map II.

A register of tribal members is kept at the Board's office in Paeroa and is regularly updated. Those aged 18 years and over are eligible to vote for their tribal representative every three years. The 12 representatives form the governing body. They meet regularly throughout the year usually on a six-weekly basis. Day to day business is managed by a Chief Executive and other staff.

18

Chapter 1: Overview and Argument

A report of activities and audited financial accounts are available to tribal members on an annual basis. Regular hui are held throughout the year to discuss important issues and as part of a mandating process to test opinion and make decisions.

The treaty claims noted above have all been endorsed by the governing body of tribal representatives and many hui over the last seven years. In addition a deed of mandate has been signed by several constituent iwi, some marae in the region and various other

claimants. A copy of the Mandate For Prosecution of Hauraki Claims By Hauraki Maori Trust Board is reproduced as Appendix 2.

19

THE CLAIMS

MAP 11: DISPERSAL OF HAURAKI TRIBES C. 1840

Source: Taimoana Turoa, 1997

20

Chapter 2

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

Based on the research and reports which form the Hauraki Treaty Claims, a revised statement of claim has been formulated to enhance the claims WAI 100, 373, 374 and 650 that have already been filed with the Waitangi Tribunal. For the record this revised statement of claim is reproduced in the following pages. Chapter 3 contains copies of the original claims taken from the Register of Claims available at the Waitangi Tribunal.

21

THE CLAIMS

IN THE WAITANGI TRIBUNAL   WAI 100

IN THE MATTER OF   The Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975

AND

IN THE MATTER OF   Claims by HUHURERE TUKUKINO and OTHERS known as the HAURAKI CLAIMS

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: WAI 100

1. Timatanga—Preamble

1.1 Ko te rohe o Hauraki—Hauraki lands

The rohe of Hauraki has at its centre the twin geographical features of the Coromandel peninsula and Tikapa Moana or the Hauraki Gulf. Extending from Moehau Mountain to Te Aroha Mountain; from Matakana in the south to Matakana in the north. The lands of Hauraki mingle with those of the Waikato confederation to the west; Ngati Haua to the southwest; Ngai te Rangi, Ngati Ranginui and Ngati Pukenga of Tauranga Moana to the south and southeast; Ngati Whatua, Ngati Wai and Ngapuhi nui tonu to the north and northwest.

See also boundary description by Taimoana Turoa in Nga Iwi o Hauraki, The Iwi of Hauraki.

1.2 Ko nga iwi o te kupenganui o Hauraki—The peoples of the great net of Hauraki

1.  The iwi, hapu and whanau of Hauraki came in many waves. In the first wave there was Ngati Hako, Ngati Hei and the Patukirikiri. To the south was Ngati Rahiri Tumutumu of the Mataatua canoe with their own traditions. To the Tamaki side was the descendants of Torere—the Ngai Tai. The mana of all these iwi remains embedded in the land today.

2.  In the second wave came the descendants of Hotunui and Paoa—the great Marutuahu confederation of Ngati Maru, Ngati Tamatera, Ngati Whanaunga and Ngati Paoa whose fires burned brightly from Moehau to Te Aroha and from Matakana to Matakana. The Ahi Karoa—the long fires of the ancestors of Marutuahu—remain to this day. The Marutuahu migration was quickly followed by the arrival of Ngati Tara, or Ngai Tara Tokanui also of Tainui who settled in the south.

3.  In the third wave came Ngati Pukenga—the Tawera—and Ngati Porou from the east. In each the kupenga of Hauraki recognised a contribution had been made and the bounty of Hauraki—te pai o Hauraki—was shared.

22

Chapter 2: Statement of Claim [2. Te Ture—Jurisdiction]

1.3 Te kaitono—the claimant

1.  The claimant in the WAI 100 comprehensive Hauraki claim is Huhurere Tukukino—rangatira of the Ngati Tamatera and spokesperson for all of Hauraki in his time.

2.  In 1986 Huhurere Tukukino lodged a claim for and on behalf of the people of Hauraki. The claim was given WAI number 100. A copy of the claim is attached here as Appendix 1.

3.  In 1989 the Hauraki Maori Trust Board Act was enacted. This followed a 3 year consultative process undertaken by the iwi of Hauraki. The enactment of the legislation was preceded by a broad consensus that an organisation representing the 12 iwi of Hauraki should be established to provide for the needs of the Hauraki people.

4.  Section 4 of the Act provides that the descendants of the following tribes are the beneficiaries of the Board:

Ngati Hako;

Ngati Hei;

Ngati Maru;

Ngati Paoa;

Te Patukirikiri;

Ngati Porou ki Harataunga ki Mataora;

Ngati Pukenga ki Waiau;

Ngati Rahiri Tumutumu;

Ngai Tai;

Ngati Tamatera;

Ngati Tara Tokanui; and

Ngati Whanaunga.

5.  These are all of the tribes of Hauraki.

In this statement of claim the term "Hauraki" means the tangata whenua of Hauraki and the iwi, hapu, whanau, individuals and communities thereof.

6.  In 1989 Huhurere Tukukino charged the Hauraki Maori Trust Board with the task of researching and prosecuting the Hauraki claim on behalf of himself and on behalf of all of the people of Hauraki. He charged the Hauraki Maori Trust Board to undertake this task faithfully and without fear or favour.

7.  The Hauraki Maori Trust Board accepted responsibility for prosecution of the WAI 100 claim.

8.  On 25 September 1991, Huhurere Tukukino returned to Hawaiki.

1.4 The claim

(a) The WAI 100 claim is a comprehensive claim on behalf of all of the tribes of Hauraki, covering the entire rohe of Hauraki, and identifying various breaches

23

THE CLAIMS

of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi by the Crown which prejudiced Hauraki Maori.

2.  Additional claims were filed by Toko Renata Te Taniwha and the Hauraki Maori Trust Board for and on behalf of those tribes of Hauraki having an interest. Claim WAI 373 relates to the Hauraki interest in the Waikato Raupatu and in particular, the Maramarua State Forest and was filed on 22 September 1995. Claim WAI 374 relates to the Hauraki interest in central Auckland lands and in particular to the railway lands there situated. It was filed on the same day. Claim WAI 650 relates to the Hauraki interest in the Athenree State Forest and the Katikati-Te Puna block and was filed on 24 December 1996.

3.  WAI 373, 374 and 650 are for all material purposes to be treated as if they are part of the comprehensive WAI 100 Hauraki claim.

2. Te Ture—Jurisdiction

The Hauraki Maori Trust Board alleges:

2.1 That the claimant was a Maori and, for the purposes of the WAI 100 claim, was representative of all the iwi of Hauraki.

2.2 That the Board and each of its 12 elected iwi representatives are Maori and, for the purposes of the prosecution of the WAI 100 claim, are representative of the 12 iwi of Hauraki, their hapu, whanau and individual constituents who are its beneficiaries.

2.3 That the claimant and that the Board, its members, the iwi, hapu, whanau and individuals who are its beneficiaries are Maori and have been and remain prejudicially affected by the Acts, Regulations, policies, practices, acts and omissions of the Crown set out in Part 3 hereof ("Nga Hara—The Grievances") which were enacted, promulgated, formulated, undertaken, done or omitted in breach of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.

2.4 That the prejudice referred to in 2.3 herein suffered by the Hauraki iwi, hapu, whanau and individuals was and remains gross, unjustifiable and disproportionate when compared with the burden of Treaty breaches borne by other iwi and when contrasted with the benefits which have accrued to the Crown and the nation in consequence of such prejudice.

2.5 That the prejudice as aforesaid was and remains such that Hauraki is entitled to immediate and substantial reparations such as to restore the mana and economic base of the Hauraki people including:

1.  The return to Hauraki of all Crown lands within the Hauraki rohe.

2.  The return to Hauraki of all State Enterprise lands within the Hauraki rohe, including any former State Enterprise lands subject to s 27B of the State Owned Enterprises Act 1986.

24

Chapter 2: Statement of Claim [3. Nga Hara—The Grievances]

3.  The return to Hauraki of all Crown Forest Assets within the Hauraki rohe; the payment to Hauraki of all undispersed rentals held by the Crown Forestry Rental Trust; and the payment to Hauraki of the maximum level of compensation payable by virtue of the provisions of the First Schedule of the Crown Forest Assets Act 1989.

4.  The immediate recognition of Hauraki traditional resource rights to the foreshore and seabed lands within the Hauraki rohe and Hauraki rights to control all access to and exploitation of those resources.

5.  The immediate recognition of Hauraki ownership of all minerals and geothermal resources currently claimed by the Crown within the Hauraki rohe.

6.  Monetary reparations.

3. Nga Hara—The Grievances

Maori [of Hauraki] born in the 1840s would have been—if lucky enough—still alive in the early 20th century. A single lifetime would have encompassed a series of major transformations—a brief time of prosperous commerce with the colonial capital, a time of war and blockade, the falling of the great forests, the gold rushes and the establishment of the gold industry, the decline of the Maori and the increase of the settler population, a series of major local outbreaks of diseases accentuating a situation of persistent ill health, the loss of all but a small proportion of the land, and a general condition of economic decline and social dislocation. It is important that the pace and the extent of change be kept in mind; together they constitute a complete revolution, political, social and economic, affecting the whole of life.

Oliver, WAI 100 evidence, Volume 10, p. 2

... the Rangahaua Whanui district where Maori had the least land on a per capita basis in 1939 was Hauraki, followed by the confiscation—affected districts of Waikato

and Taranaki, followed by Auckland.   Ward, National Overview, Volume 1, p. 154

THE HEADS AND PARTICULARS OF CLAIM REFERRED TO AT PARAGRAPH 2.3 HEREOF ARE AS FOLLOWS:

3.1 Crown Treaty breaches in respect of pre-Treaty transactions and pre-emption waiver transactions

We find that the transactions did not effect, and could not have effected valid and binding alienations. We consider that Maori entered into these transactions with entirely different expectations: that the transactions imposed obligations on the settlers, of which they ought reasonably to have been aware, but which they generally did not fulfil.

Muriwhenua Land Report (1997) p. 5

Pre-Treaty transactions

(a) The failure of the Crown, through the Old Land Claims Commissions of 1843 and 1856 ("the Commissions"), to investigate the nature of transactions entered

25

THE CLAIMS

into in accordance with Maori customary law between Hauraki and settlers prior to 1840.

2.  The wrongful adjustment of the respective interests of Hauraki, settlers and the Crown by the Commissions on the assumption that these transactions were sales in accordance with English law when in fact the transactions were arrangements in accordance with Maori customary law.

3.  The subsequent refusal by the Crown, in the face of significant Maori opposition to surveys or other actions in pursuance of Crown grants from the Commissions of 1843 or 1856, to further investigate the nature of the transactions undertaken, the sufficiency of their terms or the extent to which the Crown's obligations generally to Maori pursuant to the Treaty were discharged before the transactions were confirmed.

4.  The failure on the part of the Commissions of 1843 and 1856 to pay any or any sufficient regard to Maori objections and protests in respect of incorrect boundaries; insufficiency or failure of payment; failure to reserve areas promised for reservation; or durability of the agreement.

Pre-emption waiver

5.  The waiver of Crown pre-emption between 1844 and 1845 without enacting any or any sufficient mechanism to ensure the proper discharge of the Crown's further Treaty obligation to ensure a proper understanding of the Maori intention in the transaction, sufficiency of terms and retention of sufficient remaining land.

6.  The failure of the Crown to adequately investigate, inquire into or control in the respects set out in paragraphs (a) to (d) herein the pre-emption waiver purchases from Hauraki Maori between 1844 and 1845.

Surplus lands

7.  The arrogation by the Crown to itself the so called "surplus lands" found to be within the boundary of the pre-Treaty purchases by Fairburn in south Auckland and by Webster, Abercrombie and Nagle in southern Great Barrier Island and within the boundary of the pre-emption waiver purchase by Whittaker and de Moulin in southern Great Barrier Island but not allocated to the settler claimants when such lands ought to have been returned to Maori.

Crown purchases to 1850

8.  The acquisition by the Crown of the Hauraki interests in the Mahurangi and Kohimaramara blocks from Hauraki without first ascertaining the Hauraki intentions in or understanding of the transaction, on terms which were inconsistent with the Hauraki interest and which paid no regard to the protection of continuing Hauraki rights in the land.

26

Chapter 2: Statement of Claim [3. Nga Hara—The Grievances]

3.2 Gold and goldfields

If we unite together in this way we shall have treasures and riches, become a great people and have everything that the heart can desire. ...This requires co-operation, mutual aid and assistance. ... Your children will be benefited, our children will be

benefited....

(Daily Southern Cross, 5 June 1867 cited in Hutton, Troublesome Specimens, p. 104)

Ownership

1.  The refusal or careful omission of the Crown and Crown agents at the time of negotiations over access to the goldfields to explicitly recognise and actively protect Maori ownership of gold and other mineral resources in Hauraki; and the continuing refusal of the Crown to so recognise Maori rights in gold and other minerals up to and including the publication in 1994 of the Crown Settlement Proposals.

1852 Agreement

2.  The failure of the Crown in the 1852 Coromandel Goldfields Agreement to expressly recognise Maori ownership of gold and the failure of the Crown to make other than token financial provision for Maori by way of compensation when compared with the market value of the gold in question.

3.  The failure of the Crown to comply even with the insufficient terms and conditions of the 1852 Agreement.

4.  The unilateral abrogation of the 1852 Coromandel Goldfields Agreement in 1861 and the subsequent imposition by the Crown on Hauraki of terms and conditions severely prejudicial to Hauraki.

Tokatea

5.  The forced opening of the Tokatea Goldfield by the Crown by requiring loyalist interests within the land-owning hapu to submit their lands in order to prove their loyalty and by actively avoiding the more significant interests which refused to open the land up for mining, which tactics amounted to sharp practices and bad faith.

1861 Agreement

6.  The failure to comply even with the terms of the imposed 1861 "Agreement" necessitating numerous disputes with the Crown over rents, bridges and landing sites; the forced taking of residence sites for miners, all timber (except kauri) and the building of roads and bridges without negotiation, agreement or compensation to Hauraki.

7.  The failure or careful refusal of the Crown to provide infrastructure for the collection of payments or otherwise to make payments pursuant to the unilaterally imposed 1861 Goldfields Agreement.

8.  The failure by the Crown to pay rentals to Hauraki as agreed or to collect

27

THE CLAIMS

returns or record licences issued so as to comply with the terms and conditions of either the 1852 or 1861 "Agreements", and the use of this failure as the basis for further renegotiation of existing access rights on terms and conditions even more prejudicial to Hauraki.

9.  Retrospective underpayment of head money in Kapanga, Ngaurukehu and Matawai blocks by Agreement of 13 October 1864 in a manner which (inter alia) required Maori themselves to police the enforcement of the new "Agreement" when that obligation ought properly to have been discharged by the Crown.

The opening of the Thames 1867–1868

10.  The open and extensive use by the Crown of divide and rule tactics against Hauraki to ensure the success of Crown policy in breaking up the Hauraki estate and Hauraki social and political cohesion.

11.  The forced opening by the Crown of the Waiotahi block to mining by the kidnap by Crown agents of the two sons of Aperahama Te Reiroa of Te Matewaru and requiring the opening up of the block in return for their release.

(1) The resort by the Crown to pressure tactics in respect of the opening up of the Whakairi or Waiwhakarunga block which tactics were thoroughly inconsistent with the honour of the Crown.

13.  Adoption by or on behalf of the Crown of the policy and or practice of deliberately avoiding dealing with traditional landholding groups in favour of identifying individuals whose interests could be picked off.

14.  The Crown practice of deliberate refusal to deal with Hauraki iwi deemed to be Kingites or 'rebels' when negotiating goldmining agreements and in the initial allocation of revenues in the Thames and Tokatea goldfields, despite clear notice to the Crown that these iwi had interests in the lands subject to the dealings.

15.  The negotiation of the Thames Goldfields Cession of 1868 and the introduction of Regulations pursuant to the 1858 Goldfields Act which allowed for the entire administration of the goldfield and the override of all Maori interests by executive fiat and in particular without the need to obtain Maori consent or even consult with Maori interests.

Extension of goldfield at Pakirarahi and Te Aroha

16.  The resort by the Crown to pressure tactics in respect of the opening up of the Pakirarahi and Te Aroha Blocks.

17.  The negotiation of cession agreements on terms which were disadvantageous to Hauraki.

18.  Failure of the Crown to gain a consent of all right holders to the cession agreements.

28

Chapter II: Statement of Claim

19.  Failure to ensure that Hauraki received a fair return for the rights ceded.

Administration of goldfields

20.  The use by the Crown of goldfields rentals properly payable to Hauraki in order to fund provincial over-expenditure without Hauraki consent and without compensation.

21.  The introduction by the Crown pursuant to the Goldfields Act 1866 of a new leasehold tenure to replace the system of miners' rights and to reduce the amount payable to Hauraki without consultation with, or consent by Hauraki and the failure by the Crown to pay all or even a portion of the new lease rentals to Hauraki.

22.  The failure by the terms of the 1866 and 1868 Acts to provide for the protection of such residences, cultivations or burial grounds as were or would be excluded from the mining agreements.

23.  The introduction of retrospective validation legislation (Auckland Goldfields Proclamations Validation Act 1869) when it appeared that certain cessions and proclamations may have been invalid in law, without first having recourse to the Hauraki interests involved in the cessions and proclamations to determine whether any adjustment of these interests may be required to better protect the Hauraki interest.

24.  The failure of the Crown to institute a system of collection of revenues which was properly accountable to the Maori owners and the imposition upon those owners of a requirement to fund or subsidise the discharge of the Crown's obligation in that regard.

25.  The failure of the Crown to institute a system and infrastructure for distribution of mining rentals to all Maori in Hauraki.

26.  The general failure of the Crown to establish a system of rental payments to Maori owners which was fair and commensurate with the value of the right relinquished to the Crown.

Crown purchase of freehold of ceded goldfield blocks

(aa) The Crown policy of seeking the purchase of the freehold of ceded goldfield blocks in order to secure the interests of extractive industries with no regard for Hauraki interests in retaining those lands, including Moehau and Karaka blocks, Opango, Tawhitirahi, Waikawau and Waiwhakaurunga.

(bb) The unilateral reinterpretation of the cession agreements, by the Crown arrogating the subsurface rights of Hauraki to the Crown on the pretence that payments made under the cession agreements were for "grant of easement" only; and the taking of the subsurface rights in purchases of land without payment or compensation to Hauraki.

29

THE CLAIMS

MacCormick Inquiry

(cc) The failure of the Crown to properly investigate or consider the matters of complaint by Hauraki in respect of the opening and administration of the Hauraki Goldfields and in particular the failure of the MacCormick Inquiry in 1939 to adequately consider the complaints of Hauraki Maori including the following:

1.  The inadequacy of records rendering an analysis of the Crown's compliance with its own obligations impossible.

2. The failure of the Government to honour the Goldfields Agreements and unilaterally imposed Goldfields proclamations and legislation.

3. The failure of the Crown to recognise that miners' rights revenues ought to have continued notwithstanding transfer of the underlying freehold.

4. The failure of the Crown in its capacity as fiduciary to ensure that Hauraki understood the potential consequences, upon the continued receipt of miners rights revenues, of transfer of the underlying freehold.

5. The requirement of the Crown that all administrative expenses in respect of a system of collection and distribution which was chaotically structured and incompetently administered should be deducted from the already token and diminishing revenues of Maori.

6. The failure of the Crown to demonstrate that some of the goldfield revenues paid to local authorities by the Crown were not derived from lands still owned by Hauraki.

7. The underpayment by the Crown for the extraction of timber in pursuance of Goldfields Agreements.

8. The failure of the Crown to act on the recommendation of the MacCormick inquiry that a payment of 30–40,000 pounds be made to Hauraki.

9. The failure of the 1968 Pritchard inquiry to involve any, or any sufficient, assessment of either the evidence before the MacCormick inquiry or the contemporary Maori view in respect of the grievance.

10. The continuing failure of the Crown to address these matters such that a claim to the Waitangi Tribunal has become necessary.

3.3 Raupatu and war

1. The Crown acknowledges that its representatives and advisors acted unjustly and in breach of the Treaty of Waitangi in its dealings with the Kiingitanga and Waikato in sending its forces across the Mangataawhiri in July 1863 and unfairly labeling Waikato as rebels.

2. The Crown expresses its profound regret and apologises unreservedly for the loss of lives because of the hostilities arising from its invasion, and at the devastation of property and social life which resulted.

3. The Crown acknowledges that the subsequent confiscation of lands and resources under the New Zealand Settlements Act 1863 of the New Zealand Parliament were wrongful, have caused Waikato to the present time to suffer feelings in relation to

30

Chapter 2: Statement of Claim [3. Nga Hara—The Grievances]

their lost land akin to those of orphans and have a crippling impact on the welfare, economy and development of Waikato.

4. The Crown appreciates that this sense of grief, the justice of which under the Treaty of Waitangi has remained unrecognised, has given rise to Waikato's two principles "i riro whenua atu, me hold whenua mai" (the land was taken, land should be returned) and "Ko te moni hei utu mo te hara (the money is the acknowledgment by the Crown of their crime). In order to provide redress the Crown has agreed to return as much land as is possible that the Crown has in its possession to Waikato.

5. The Crown recognises that the lands confiscated in the Waikato have made a significant contribution to the welfare and development of New Zealand, whilst the Waikato tribe has been alienated from its land and deprived of the benefit of its lands.

6. Accordingly, the Crown speaks on behalf of all New Zealanders to atone for these acknowledged injustices, so far as that is now possible, and, with the grievance of the raupatu finally settled as to the matters set out in the Deed of Settlement signed on 22 May 1995 to begin the process of healing to enter a new age of co-operation with the Kingi Tanga and Waikato.

Waikato Raupatu Claims Settlement Act 1995, section 6

War

1.  The imposition of an economic blockade across Tikapa Moana by the Crown interfering with Hauraki fisheries and trading activities notwithstanding the neutral position of Hauraki iwi in the land wars.

2.  The unlawful and unjustified levying of war by the Crown against Hauraki iwi including the bombardment, and the burning of whare and cultivations of Hauraki settlements at Whakatiwai, Paparata, Opuaruru and Mangatangi River.

3.  The cynical use by the Crown of military means, or the threat of military means as a policy tool in preventing alliance between Hauraki and Waikato.

Raupatu

4.  The development by the Crown of confiscation policy with little consideration for the actual political disposition of iwi.

5.  The unjustified and unlawful confiscation by the Crown of large blocks of Hauraki lands in East Wairoa, central Waikato and Tauranga in circumstances where the vast majority of Hauraki had maintained neutrality during fighting.

Compensation

6.  The operation by the Crown of the Compensation Court so as to extinguish customary title and individualise the title to lands returned so as to undermine Hauraki authority over land.

7.  The refusal of the Crown, through the Compensation Court, to restore tribal land and resources to Hauraki iwi (prior to the passage of the New Zealand Settlements Amendment Act 1865), so as to effect the compulsory purchase of

31

THE CLAIMS

Hauraki interests in lands at East Wairoa which had been declared as forfeited without justification

8.  The premeditated use by the Crown of the Compensation Court process to subjugate so called "rebels" and the co-operation of government officials with the Native Land Court in the award of titles to lands adjacent to East Wairoa to "friendly" elements within the tribe to the utter exclusion of those named as "rebels", without the latter being given any chance to be heard.

9.  The use of negotiated payments by the Crown to extinguish the interests of Hauraki iwi in Urangahauhau No. i and Whakakaiwhara and in the reserves which had been set aside from the Fairburn purchase.

10.  The failure and or refusal of the Crown to ensure that Hauraki iwi had the means to attend hearings of the Compensation Court so as to force Hauraki to enter into out of court monetary settlements in respect of their interests in lands in central Waikato and Tauranga.

11.  The practice adopted by Crown agents of treating payments to selected individuals as if such payments represented a complete extinguishment of broader tribal interests in the land.

(1) The failure and/or refusal of the Crown to acknowledge or address the claims of Hauraki whose lands were confiscated without justification and who received no compensation from the Crown.

Return of reserves

13.  The failure and/or refusal of the Crown to adequately address the complaints of dispossessed Hauraki in respect of confiscated lands at Piako and Te Aroha.

14.  The use by the Crown of promises to return "reserves" under the Confiscated Land Act 1867 as a means of submitting "rebels" to the Queens authority

15.  The refusal of the Crown to expeditiously provide sufficient reserves for the subsistence needs of Hauraki iwi from whose land they had been dispossessed pursuant to Crown policy despite formal pleas by Hauraki iwi for such expeditious provision.

16.  The eventual return by the Crown of only one small portion of the former lands of dispossessed Hauraki iwi at Piako, despite the numerous promises of Crown agents and after several decades of costly struggle.

3.4 Alienation of Thames foreshore and seabed

O friends, our hands, our feet, our bodies, are always on our places of the sea; the Wsh, the mussels, the shellfish are there. Our hands are holding onto those, extending even to the gold beneath. The men, the women, the children are united in this that they alone are to have control of all the places of the sea ...

(Petition of Te Moananui, 5 August 1869 cited in report of Committee on Thames Sea Beach Bill AJHR, 1869. F–7. App E p.18, doc. 61, p. 1416)

32

Chapter 2: Statement of Claim [3. Nga Hara—The Grievances]

Ownership

1.  The failure and/or refusal of the Crown to formally recognise and/or actively protect Hauraki ownership of their foreshore lands and resources.

2.  The active pursuit by the Crown of a policy aimed at the arrogation of title to the foreshore lands and resources to the Crown through the unilateral reinterpretation of the extent of ownership rights held by Hauraki as usufructuary rights only.

3.  The unlawful issue of a proclamation by the Waste Land Commissioner proclaiming all land above and below high water mark to be reserved for Crown purposes as a stop-gap measure so as to prevent Hauraki from entering into private transactions with their foreshore lands and resources.

4.  The subsequent enactment by the Crown of the Thames Sea Beach Act which reimposed the Crown right of pre-emption over the Kauaeranga foreshore without Hauraki consent and in order to prevent Hauraki from entering into any private leasing arrangements with their lands in a manner calculated to directly undermine the rangatiratanga of Hauraki over the foreshore.

5.  The failure and/or refusal of the Crown to ensure that the Native Land Court gave effect to the full extent of Hauraki ownership rights in respect of the foreshore lands.

Native Land Court

6.  The subsequent removal by the Crown of the foreshore from the jurisdiction of the Native Land Court in the Auckland province by the issue of a proclamation under the Native Land Act 1867 in order to prevent any further possible recognition of Hauraki interests (whether ownership or usufructuary) in the foreshore by the Native Land Court, and the enactment by the Crown of s. 147 of the Harbours Act in 1878 in order to preclude the Native Land Court from issuing any title to the foreshore once that proclamation ceased to have effect.

Purchase of the foreshore 1870–1872

7.  The pursuit by the Crown of the complete alienation of the foreshore despite the strong preference of Hauraki to retain ownership of this most valuable land and enter into lease arrangements only.

8.  Use by the Crown of the fact of colonisation of Thames, itself actively promoted by the Crown, as a basis for refusing to protect the legitimate property rights of Hauraki iwi in the foreshore and so as to pressure Hauraki into alienation of their rights.

9.  Crown entry into negotiations to purchase the Kauaeranga and Thames foreshore on the basis that payments constituted compensation for interference with fishing rights only, so as to deny Hauraki ownership of, and the receipt of full value for, the foreshore land and resources alienated.

33

THE CLAIMS

10.  Recognition of illegal occupation and reclamation of the foreshore prior to purchase and the failure and/or refusal of the Crown to ensure that Hauraki owners received compensation for such use.

11.  The exclusion by the Crown of Hauraki from participation in the profits of development of those areas of foreshore devoted to public purposes.

(1) The failure and/or refusal of the Crown to act on the petitions of Arama Karaka, Hohepa Mataitaua and Matiu Pono seeking protection in the exercise of their traditional fishing rights.

3.5 Native Land Court

It [the Crown] set up a body of self proclaimed experts who had to try, and frequently failed, to interpret Maori custom ... the system invited not co-operation but contention between parties who—although the Court frequently divided the land—could win all, or lose all, on the judge's nod.

A. Ward A Show of Justice: Racial "Amalgamation" in 19th Century New Zealand, Auckland, 1974, p. 186

Introduction of the Native Land Court Act 1865

1.  The introduction by the Crown through the Native Land Acts of a new system of title allocation specifically designed to defeat chiefly authority and traditional whanau, hapu and iwi-based systems of land tenure and social cohesion.

2.  The introduction by the Crown of a new English-based land tenure system whose cornerstone was the individualisation of formerly communally held interests for the specific purpose of ensuring that tribal opposition to land sales could be circumvented through acquisition from interest holding individuals.

3.  The introduction by the Crown of the "ten owner rule" so as to destroy the Maori land tenure concepts of kaitiakitanga and trusteeship and the failure and or refusal of the Crown in the pursuit of its policy of individualisation of title to ensure that all individual interests were accounted for and the effective raupatu of those individual interests not noted on the title.

4.  The introduction by the Crown, through the Native Land Act of a free market "uninhibited by Crown pre-emption" in tradeable individual land interests, which market was designed to achieve the rapid transfer of such interests out of Maori hands and the refusal of the Crown to introduce any effective protective measures to ensure the retention by Hauraki of an adequate land base.

5.  The introduction by the Crown of the Native Land Court whose primary purpose was to achieve the Crown policy of cheap and speedy extinction of Native title including the title of Hauraki.

General impact of Native Land Court

6.  The use by the Crown of the Native Land Court to individualise Hauraki

34

Chapter 2: Statement of Claim [3. Nga Hara—The Grievances]

title so as to facilitate the rapid acquisition of land including those lands in Waiheke, Mercury Bay/Whangapaoa, Coromandel, Wairoa and Orere (western side of the Firth of Thames) and Waitekauri from the few persons named on the title by the Native Land Court; knowing that such rapid extinction of Hauraki title was inconsistent with the interests of the individuals named and the broader collective on whose behalf those individuals ought to have held their title.

7.  The failure and/or refusal of the Crown to ensure that the Native Land Court correctly identified all parties with an interest in lands and the failure of the Crown to intervene in the circumstances of the discriminatory and divisive practices of the Native Land Court, including the exclusion of Hauraki iwi from the award of title to Te Aroha which led to several decades of bitter dispute.

8.  The introduction by the Crown of a system which inevitably forced Hauraki into debt through the necessity of entering into the expensive and often protracted process of contesting claims in the Court in order to protect title, which in turn required the sale of some or all of the land investigated in order to meet the debts incurred; such debts being significant factors in the acquisition of lands at (inter alia) Piako and Te Aroha.

9.  The practice of the Crown that a survey must be carried out before title to a block could be decided and the inevitable imposition of a lien over the land in favour of the Crown for the cost of the survey; the use by the Crown of survey liens to force the sale of interests in the land surveyed in order to meet survey debts incurred; the failure of the Crown to protect Hauraki from the exploitation of survey debt and liens by private purchasers; such survey debts being a significant factor in the acquisition of lands in (inter alia) Whitipirorua, Wharekawa East 1 and 3, Omahu, Otama East, Otama West and Mangakirikiri blocks.

(3) The failure and/or refusal of the Native Land Court, acting on behalf of the Crown, to accommodate Maori concepts of kaitiakitanga and trusteeship in the construction of title; and in particular:

1. The failure and/or refusal of the Native Land Court acting on behalf of the Crown to utilise s. 24 of the Native Lands Act 1865 which allowed for limited continuation of hapu ownership of lands through the imposition of the "ten owner rule," and the treatment of the grantees as tenants in common who could sell their share without the agreement of fellow owners.

2. The continuation of the application of the "ten owner rule" and the tenants in common principle by the Court, despite the enactment of s. 17 of the Native Land Act 1867 which provided for the inclusion of all customary owners on the title.

3. The entrenching of the application of the tenant in common principle by the Native Land Act 1873 which destroyed legally binding trusts

35

THE CLAIMS

established under s. 17 of the Native Land Act 1867 and affirmed the right of each individual named on the title to dispose of their interests in the land thereby reducing the power of the rangatira to that of one individual only and the failure of the Crown to establish and maintain endowment reserves under the 1873 Act for Hauraki.

(k) In the event that it is considered that the Native Land Court was not acting for or on behalf of the Crown, then the failure and/or refusal of the Crown to ensure that aspects of the Native Land Act which could accommodate the traditional Maori systems of land tenure were applied by the Court.

Failure to respond to Hauraki protest

(1) The failure and/or refusal of the Crown to respond to the petition of Hoani Nahe seeking greater Hauraki control over the Land Court processes and greater Hauraki participation in Hauraki local decision-making structures generally.

13.  The failure and/or refusal of the Crown to respond to the petition of 5 Thames Maori of 1872 who sought the repeal of s. 33 of the Native Land Act 1867 (which enabled Maori to charge court costs against interests in lands).

14.  The failure and/or refusal of the Crown to respond to or adequately address the petition of Mohi Mangakahia and 19 others of 1873 seeking the repeal of sections of the Native Land Act pertaining to district officers and their complaint over the paternalistic nature of these provisions.

15.  The failure and/or refusal of the Crown to respond to the numerous complaints of Hauraki over the terms of particular decisions of the Native Land Court, including decisions at Owharoa, Waihi, Karaka, Te Hape, Thames, Waikawau, Komata and other Hauraki lands.

16.  The failure and/or refusal of the Crown to recognise and/or support Hauraki initiatives aimed at gaining greater control over the process of establishing title to land, and in particular the Thames Native Land Committee established under the Native Committees Empowering Act 1883 by Hauraki and the demands of Hauraki that the question of partitions of Ohinemuri be left to them to decide.

17.  The failure and/or refusal of the Crown to undertake consultation with Hauraki, or to review or halt the operation of the land laws in the district, in the face of an express wish from a large group within Hauraki to slow or halt or amend considerably their operation in the district, as expressed in the Whaka Kotahitanga petition and associated meetings.

18.  The continuation by the Crown of the operation of the Native Land Court in the face of the Kotahitanga meetings and petition and attempted boycott of

36

Chapter 2: Statement of Claim

the court, in an effort to undermine the protest, and to continue the flow of Hauraki lands into government hands.

Commissions of inquiry

19.  The failure and/or refusal of the Crown to utilise the inquiry of the Haultain Commission to address the fundamental Treaty breaches in the structure of the Native Land Court system.

20.  The failure and/or refusal of the Crown to utilise the findings and evidence of the Rees Commission to address the fundamental Treaty breaches in the structure of the Native Land Court system.

3.6 Land acquisition and public works policy

...We find that the Crown was or is in breach of the Treaty as follows:

... The implementation of Vogel's policy in the claim area to the disadvantage of tangata whenua by directing public works to the development of extractive industries and farming without corresponding state assistance to existing Maori communities.

Te Roroa Report (WAI 38), p. 287.

1.  The pursuit by the Crown of a public works policy based on the large scale acquisition of Hauraki lands and directed exclusively at extinguishing Hauraki title and the development of settlements, extractive industries and pastoral farming.

2.  The refusal and/or failure of the Crown to ensure that any corresponding benefit, assistance or protection was given to existing Hauraki communities; and the exclusion of Hauraki from the power structures controlling the direction and pace of the public works.

3.  The active use of public works projects by the Crown to undermine the authority of those sections of Hauraki which desired to retain control of their lands, including (inter alia) the pursuit of the construction of a road at Waihou without the consent of and in the face of the continued passive resistance of Tukukino.

4.  The enactment by the Crown of the Immigration and Public Works Act 1870 which provided for:

1. the taking of land without the consent of Hauraki and without compensation;

2. the financial means to make large scale purchases of Hauraki lands;

3. the reintroduction by process of proclamation of the Crown right of pre-emption over lands subject to negotiation between the Crown and Hauraki;

the purpose and effect of which legislation was to undermine the ability of Hauraki to retain their lands and the ability of Hauraki to benefit from the

37

THE CLAIMS

increased value of their lands as a result of public works, due to the Crown monopoly.

Waihou and Ohinemuri Rivers Improvement Act 1910

5.  The enactment by the Crown of the the Waihou and Ohinemuri Rivers Improvement Act 1910 which empowered the Crown to compulsorily acquire the remaining lands of Hauraki for flood protection purposes, and the failure of the Crown to provide for the assistance of Hauraki who wished to remain on those lands or for the exchange of the land taken for other productive land.

6.  The failure and/or refusal of the Crown to provide compensation for the actual loss of the land under this legislation, providing for payment of "compassionate compensation" only.

7.  The application by the Crown of a "betterment principle" under this legislation so as to even further reduce the compensation payable to Hauraki.

8.  The provision by the Crown under this legislation for works to be undertaken which caused further flooding of the riparian lands of Hauraki, including the loss of waahi tapu, and the failure and/or refusal of the Crown to provide compensation for this further loss;

Hauraki Plains Act 1908

9.  The enactment by the Crown of the Hauraki Plains Act 1908 which provided for the compulsory acquisition of the limited land remaining to Hauraki and proceeded on the demonstrably false premise that Hauraki retained sufficient land to benefit from the compulsory acquisitions and improvement works.

10.  The utilisation by the Crown of this legislation to take hundreds of acres of Hauraki land, some of which was not required for the immediate purposes of the Act, and was therefore taken ultra vires the legislation.

11.  The utilisation of this legislation by the Crown to unlawfully take the papakainga at Kerepehi, in the face of the determined protest of the owners.

(1) The destruction of bird, fish and other resources used by Hauraki on the plain and wetlands as a result of the operation of this legislation.

3.7 Land purchase policy

[T]he natives were told distinctly that if any natives, however few, could prove a sound title to land that they wished to sell, the offer would be entertained; and that if opposed by the tribe on no better grounds than that the land should not be sold, such opposition would carry no weight with it ...

Drummond Hay to Chief Commissioner, 4 July 1861. In Turton, Epitome, see 338. doc. ii, p. 103.

(a) The pursuit by the Crown of policies and the practices of Crown agents specifically designed to undermine tribal authority over lands in order to facilitate Crown acquisition and in particular:

38

Chapter 2: Statement of Claim [3. Nga Hara—The Grievances]

1. The use of divide and rule tactics by Crown agents supporting those minor sections of Hauraki which were willing to sell lands, notwithstanding the objections of the majority who wished to retain control of tribal lands.

2. The deliberate exploitation of the system of land tenure introduced by the Native Land Act and the diminution of chiefly authority which was its result, and in particular:

•        The making of advance payments, prior to investigation of title by the Native Land Court to those individuals who might be put on the title in order to preclude private purchase and ensure future acquisition by the Crown.

•        The cynical avoidance of tribal opposition to sale by picking off individual interest holders, whose interests had become freely tradeable as a result of the Native Land Court processes; and the use of small and repeated payments to those individuals as a means of continually "baiting the hook".

•        The exploitation by the Crown of survey debt through the purchase of survey liens taken out by private agents over Hauraki lands in order to facilitate purchase by the Crown.

(iii) The Crown practice of making secret payments (either in cash or goods) to Hauraki individuals for the sole purpose of securing those advances as debts against interests in land in order to force the eventual alienations of individual interests which practice was so detested and notorious among Hauraki iwi that a special and perjorative term—"raihana" was used to describe it; and the deliberate fostering of debt generally in Hauraki society by Crown agents in order to speed acquisition of lands.

2.  The Crown pursuit of a policy of acquisition of freehold title to lands known to contain valuable subsurface and surface resources, notwithstanding the strong and expressed preference of Hauraki iwi for ongoing leasing arrangements.

3. The Crown adoption of further policies and practices designed to ensure clear Crown advantage in the acquisition of Hauraki lands, having failed to discharge its own obligations of active protection of Hauraki land base, in particular the Crown adoption of policies and practices to unfairly reduce the purchase price by the following means:

1.  The reintroduction by the Crown of the right of pre-emption in respect of lands which were subject to negotiation between the Crown and Hauraki so as to preclude private competition for lands.

2. The unfair practice of Crown agents, who intentionally obscured from Hauraki the potential mineral value of their land prior to purchase in order to ensure cheap acquisition of these valuable lands by the Crown, including (inter alia) the acquisition by the Crown of Awakanae, Maumaupaki and Mauhakirau.

39

THE CLAIMS

(iii) The Crown practice of raihana as previously described whereby lands were acquired on the basis of incomplete and inaccurate records of debts accrued over long periods of time against ill-defined interests in land and on the basis of receipt of goods of significantly lower value than the interest in land acquired by the Crown.

4.  The reliance by the Crown on defective deeds of purchase which were of a formulaic nature, containing vague boundary descriptions and obscuring the price paid per acre.

5.  The failure of the Crown to ensure that Hauraki retained adequate reserves for their future needs when Crown agents were aware of the significant social impact that land sales were having on Hauraki communities, including (inter alia) the communities of Patukirikiri of Coromandel and Ngati Hei of Mercury Bay.

6.  The self serving activities of Crown land purchase agents who used their public role in order to serve their personal interests; and the failure of the Tairua Investigation Committee to address the impact of this official abuse on Hauraki.

7.  The failure and or refusal of the Crown to monitor the activities of Crown agents, and in particular James McKay, to ensure that the honour of the Crown was upheld in all dealings of Crown agents with Hauraki.

3.8 Acquisition of Ohinemuri

All I have to say in reference to the treasures under the ground is this:—Omahu is the boundary laid down by the Maori and Pakeha chiefs, from thence right round to the east coast. That part is for you; the land, the gold and all. This part was set aside for us

... the surface and the underground as well ...

Reihana Te Tahua, at a meeting which took place at Ohinemuri, 9 December 1869. In report of Puckey to McLean, 15 November 1869, AJHR 1870 A–19, p. 9 doc 62, p. 1423.

Pressure on Obinemuri

1.  The practice of Crown agents of actively seeking to undermine the integrity of the Hikutaia—Omahu aukati imposed by Hauraki rangatira in order to retain the lands and resources south of that boundary for Hauraki.

2.  The practice of Crown agents of dealing with sections of Ngati Tamatera for interests in lands which did not immediately threaten the aukati (such as Waikawau and Moehau) in order to undermine and progressively break down the position of "non-sellers" in respect of Ohinemuri.

3.  The deliberate fostering by the Crown of debt amongst individual Ngati Tamatera through raihana, the exploitation of tangi, the transfer of liens and the charging of debt against interests (primarily) in Waikawau, but also in Moehau and Ohinemuri, without the knowledge or consent of all right holders, and in order to facilitate the acquisition of Ohinemuri.

40

Chapter 2: Statement of Claim [3. Nga Hara—The Grievances]

(d) The cynical use by the Crown of the disruptive behaviour of settlers as a negotiating tool imposing the responsibility for peace on Hauraki acquiescing to settler demands.

Cession of Ohinemuri goldfield 1875

(e) The action of the Crown in forcing the opening of the Ohinemuri Goldfield as a direct consequence of its practice of actively fostering debt amongst Ngati Tamatera.

(f) The failure and/or refusal of the Crown to discharge its obligation of active protection of the Hauraki interest and in particular the intentional execution by the Crown of the Ohinemuri Cession Agreement, the terms of which were prejudicial to the interests of Hauraki iwi and in particular:

1. The acquisition by the Crown through the cession of all interests other than the freehold title to the land including the right to mine for gold, coal, kauri gum and other minerals, the right to cut timber (other than kauri) and provision for agricultural leases.

2. The failure by the Crown to determine, or the practice by the Crown to ignore, the clear Ngati Tamatera understanding that the cession involved only the right to mine for gold.

3. The retention by the Crown of all revenues obtained from rights ceded by the Crown on the basis that these revenues constituted a repayment of debt owed to the Crown, which debt was itself the reason for the cession.

(g) The failure and/or refusal of the Crown to gain the consent of all right holders in Ohinemuri to the cession agreement.

(h) The failure and/or refusal of the Crown to respond to the petition of Ngati Hako and Whakatohea protesting that they had received no down payments on Ohinemuri and had not signed a cession deed, but lost their land.

Loss of freehold of Ohinemuri 1877–1882

(i) The acquisition by the Crown of the freehold of Ohinemuri despite the clear and expressed understanding of Hauraki that the Crown would not seek to purchase the freehold title of lands within the cession boundary, but would give Hauraki a fair opportunity through the income of the cession to repay the debt on the land.

(j) The treatment by the Crown of the payments made prior to the cession agreement of 1875 as if they were payments on account of purchase, when they were clearly not intended to be so treated by either party at the time of payment.

(k) The failure and or refusal of the Crown to implement or give effect to the findings of the Parliamentary Native Affairs Committee investigation of 1883 into these matters including its finding that the original negotiations had proceeded on the basis that the payments were made on account of the cession of mining rights only.

41

THE CLAIMS

(l) The unlawful conversion by the Crown of revenues from the cession which Hauraki right holders were entitled to where such right holders who had not received any prior payment from the Crown, were not indebted to the Crown, and had not consented to any alienation of their lands.

13. The making of payments by Crown agents to Hauraki individuals in order to effect the purchase of Ohinemuri which bore little relationship to the actual extent of the entitlement of the recipient, such payments being made before title had been decided upon by the Native Land Court.

14. The deliberate exclusion by the Crown, through the Native Land Court process, of those lands subject to existing mining claims from the titles awarded to non-sellers, thereby depriving Hauraki of continued ownership of the most valuable lands.

15. The failure of the Crown to ensure that Hauraki retained adequate reserves within the Ohinemuri Block to serve their immediate and future needs and the failure of the Crown to place restrictions on the future alienation of those reserves which were set aside.

3.9 Acquisition of Piako

(a) The use of pressure tactics by the Crown, the exploitation of its monopoly rights and the active encouragement of divisions between Hauraki in order to facilitate the acquisition of Piako, including:

1.  The proclamation by the Crown of 200,000 acres of the Piako lands as under negotiation, so as to draw Hauraki into negotiations for their lands when many were clearly reluctant to become involved.

2. The indiscriminate practice of the Crown of making payments to individuals before proper delineation of the customary rights of iwi, hapu and whanau so as to create conflict and division between Hauraki and undermine tribal authority.

3. The exploitation by the Crown of survey debts of Hauraki in order to facilitate the acquisition of Piako lands.

4. The utilisation by the Crown of the great feast given by Ngati Paoa in 1874 as an opportunity for raihana so as to further lock Hauraki into debt and facilitate the sale process.

5.  The refusal of the Crown to halt survey operations in the face of the vociferous objection of Hauraki to the progress of survey of the Piako.

6. The dismissal by the Crown of Hauraki protest on the basis that it was an attack on the law of the colony when in fact their protest was motivated by a concern for loss of their land, the undermining of their rangatiratanga, and the breach of Crown promises to Hauraki.

42

Chapter 2: Statement of Claim [3. Nga Hara—The Grievances]

3.10 Acquisition of Hauraki Plains

1.  The active exploitation by the Crown of debts generated by the land court system in order to force Hauraki to relinquish their lands in the Hauraki Plains against their wishes.

2. The cynical use by the Crown of the desperate circumstances of Hauraki as a means of purchasing land at the lowest possible price, even in circumstances where Hauraki landowners had been jailed or were under threat of jail or in severe debt.

3. The failure and or refusal of the Crown to provide adequate reserves following the purchase of Piako river blocks in circumstances where Hauraki landowners had expressly stated that they were selling lands which had been intended for their future well-being simply to clear present debts.

4. The effective confiscation by the Crown of thousands of acres of Hauraki land under s. 20 of the Maori Land Settlement Act 1905, which forced minority non-sellers to accept the decision of the majority to sell and at the price decided on by the majority.

3.11 Loss of reserves

1.  The active pursuit by the Crown of a policy aimed specifically at the removal of restrictions on sale of reserves for the purpose of acquisition of such reserves by the Crown.

2.  The failure by the Crown, in pursuit of such policy, to consider the immediate and future needs of Hauraki, the poverty of Hauraki as a result of land loss and the complete dependence of Hauraki on Crown protection of those lands still remaining in their hands, and in particular:

1. The enactment by the Crown of the Native Land Administration Act 1888, which provided for the removal of restrictions on sale of reserves by a simple majority of owners.

2. The enactment by the Crown of the Native Land Purchases Act 1892, which provided for the automatic removal of restrictions on alienation to the Crown; which legislation resulted in a wave of alienations of reserved lands to the Crown.

3. The enactment by the Crown of the Native Land Purchase and Acquisition Act 1893, which provided for the removal of restrictions on sale of reserves by a simple majority of owners, and set the price for the interests of both the majority and the minority in the blocks and forced the minority shareholders to sell their interests; and the removal of restrictions on over 40 blocks (mostly in the Waikawau and Te Aroha regions) under that legislation.

43

THE CLAIMS

4. The failure and/or refusal of the Crown to intervene to prevent the removal of restrictions on the sale of reserves in circumstances where the owners were selling land in order to obtain basic necessities such as food, or to meet Native Land Court and survey costs; and the purchase of such reserves by the Crown, including (inter alia) the purchase by the Crown of the Ngati Kopirimau reserve in the knowledge that its Hauraki owner was bankrupt and the Ngati Koi reserve in the knowledge that land court fees were forcing the owners into sale.

5. The practice of the Crown of negotiating the purchase of reserves well in advance of making any application (where necessary), for the removal of restrictions on sale, so as to undermine the objections of Hauraki interest holders to sale.

6. The enactment by the Crown of the Native Land Act in 1909 which removed any remaining restrictions on the sale of reserves and left Hauraki effectively bereft of any protection of their already decimated land base.

3.12 Timber leases

1. The failure of the Crown to prevent the exploitation of Hauraki by private third parties and the tacit endorsement by the Crown of illegal leases of large tracts of land on the north-eastern side of the Coromandel Peninsula by private saw-milling companies, such leases giving extensive cutting and water rights for significant periods of time for sums far below the market value of the timber resource.

2.  The use of existing illegal timber leases by the Crown in land purchase negotiations with Hauraki as a means of reducing the purchase price of the land.

3.  The pre-emptive arrangement of timber leases by individuals in collusion with the Land Purchase Department immediately prior to purchase with the effect of reducing the purchase price which might be payable by the Crown.

3.13 Environmental degradation

When your petitioners ceded the land for mining purposes the Ohinemuri River contained pure clear water ... in consequence of the Proclamation in 1895 of the Ohinemuri and Waihou Rivers to be places of deposit for tailings, mining debris, and waste water from the mines the river water became contaminated, and so polluted as to be unfit for use by man or beast.

... Your petitioners greatly fear that if the deposit of such mining tailings, sludge, sand, debris and waste water is not stopped forthwith, that the whole of our lands on both banks of the Ohinemuri River will, within a very short period, be rendered useless for the purposes of cultivation, which will become a matter of ruination and starvation for us. We have very little dry land of any kind left to us, as nearly all the hill country we owned was included in the area ceded for mining purposes.

(Petition of Ngatitamatera, 1900, quoted in The Crown, the Treaty, and the Hauraki Tribes, 1880-1980, Chapter IV, p. 112)

44

Chapter I: Overview and Argument [3. Nga Hara—The Grievances]

According to my idea the rights (mana) of the stream rests with the Maoris [sic] and it is for you to proclaim to the Europeans that the rights of the creeks are with the natives and that arrangements should be made first before they commence to work—this rule of the Europeans to do the work first and then arrange for it and pass an act is wrong.

Nikorima Poutotara submission, 27 February 1874 Auckland Provincial Government, general inwards correspondence. AP2/72/3512. doc. 33, P. 544

(a) Failure and/or refusal of the Crown to protect Hauraki rangatiratanga over their rivers.

(b) The introduction by the Crown of the Timber Floating Act 1873 which facilitated the use of waterways by timber companies with no consultation with Hauraki, although it was known that Hauraki interests, in particular Hauraki eel weir rights which had been explicitly vindicated by the Supreme Court, would be affected by the legislation and it was opposed on this basis by all 4 Maori MPs.

(c) The failure of the Crown to act in order to prevent the injury to the crops and cultivations of Hauraki on the banks of rivers, the interference with navigation and the loss of traditional food traps resulting from use and development of Hauraki rivers under this Act.

(d) The declaration by the Crown of the Waihou and Ohinemuri Rivers as sludge channels under the Mining Act 1891, allowing them to be used for the dumping of mining waste, including toxic wastes such as cyanide, without consultation with Hauraki people living on the banks of rivers, and in breach of agreements that lands outside areas ceded for mining purposes would not be affected by mining developments, which declarations led to:

1. the pollution of water used by Hauraki for domestic and stock purposes depriving Hauraki of drinking water and supplies for stock

2. the flooding of riparian lands under cultivation by Hauraki

3. the destruction of urupa and waahi tapu

4. the erosion on Hauraki land, including Waipatukahu blocks

5. the destruction of eel and other fisheries

6. the destruction of Hauraki wetlands.

(e) The active encouragement by the Crown of the unchecked exploitation of the timber resource with no regard for the sustainability of this practice, despite numerous and timely warnings of the disastrous consequences which were likely to, and did, flow from this practice.

(f) The failure and or refusal of the Crown, up to the present day, to protect Hauraki in the exercise of their customary harvest rights, and the enactment by the Crown of legislation which interferes with Hauraki exercise of these rights.

45

THE CLAIMS

3.14 Local government and rating

(a) The failure and/or refusal of the Crown to ensure that provincial or local government effectively involved Hauraki in their affairs and the failure and/or refusal to have regard to Hauraki views or interests in the policy and practice of local government.

(b) The progressive degradation of the entire cultural landscape of Hauraki pursuant to the exercise of local government powers or in accordance with the terms of local government consents without reference to, consultation with, or consent of Hauraki.

(c) The empowerment of local government by the Crown to confiscate land for the roading purposes and other public works purposes without the need to consult with or have regard to Hauraki interests.

(d) Utilisation by local government of its confiscatory powers so as to benefit and enrich Pakeha land by the provision of roading access over Hauraki land when the same benefit was not extended to Hauraki land owners when they required access.

(e) Failure and/or refusal of the Crown to uphold the agreement made between Hauraki and the Thames County Council in 1877 which permitted a road to be made through Ngati Maru lands provided that rates would not be paid by Hauraki in the future, and in particular:

1. The refusal of the Crown to recognise the agreement as being enforceable and the failure of the Crown to give the agreement legislative effect or the force of law until 1930 when some only of the affected lands were exempted from rates by Gazette notice.

2. The enactment by the Crown of rating legislation which undermined the agreement.

3. The failure of the Crown to prevent an application by the local authority under s. 453 of the Maori Affairs Act 1953 to determine how the rating exemptions should be dealt with.

4. Implementation by the Crown of the recommendation of the court that the agreement should be brought to an end when the Crown knew or ought to have known that the agreement was binding upon it and could not be set aside without the agreement of Hauraki.

(f) The establishment by the Crown of a general rating regime in Hauraki which:

1. Failed to take account of the different cultural values of Hauraki in respect of their land, the different uses they made of it, their unique views regarding group interests and alienation, the relative landlessness of Hauraki people, and their future needs.

2. Permitted rates to be levied on Hauraki lands on the basis of excessive valuations giving rise to rates which far exceeded the cost of the limited services provided and the limited productive capacity of the land.

46

Chapter 2: Statement of Claim

(iii) Permitted local authorities to confiscate Hauraki lands for non payment of rates.

(g) The positive encouragement given by the Crown to local authorities to utilise the powers mentioned in paragraph (b) herein so as to lead to Hauraki bearing an unfair and unequal rates burden, and inevitably the further loss, by confiscation, of Hauraki lands for non-payment of rates.

3.15 Te Aroha Hot Springs

1.  The failure and/or refusal of the Crown to recognise the full extent of traditional Hauraki rights in the Te Aroha geothermal resource.

2.  The failure and/or refusal of the Crown to honour the negotiated arrangement with Hauraki including the Crown's guarantee of continued free access by Hauraki to all of the Te Aroha hot springs for traditional purposes.

3.  The failure and/or refusal of the Crown to provide free access by Hauraki and in particular the deliberate segregation of Hauraki from Pakeha users of the resource in order to protect the potential of the springs for Pakeha tourists.

4.  The expectation of the Crown that Hauraki landowners at Te Aroha subsidise the development of the springs by keeping the price of their land as low as possible, using the justification that Hauraki would participate in the benefits of that development.

5.  The consequent failure and/or refusal of the Crown to ensure that Hauraki retained sufficient land so that they could, in fact, participate in these benefits, including the Crown action of purchasing the last significant area of Hauraki lands in Te Aroha, at Morgantown, when Pakeha lessees complained about the level of Maori rentals and argued that the presence of Maori was hindering the development of the Te Aroha resort.

3.16 Social and economic depriviation Education

1.  The requirement by the Crown that Hauraki cede lands for the establishment of schools from their already dwindling estate.

2.  The operation by the Crown of a discriminatory schooling policy in the district in that Maori requests for schools took years to implement, while schools were regularly established upon Pakeha request as Pakeha settlement expanded.

3.  The pursuit by the Crown of an assimilationist policy in education resulting in the near extinction of the Maori language and culture.

Health

4.  The operation by the Crown of a land purchase policy resulting in loss of access to traditional food sources, poverty, subsistence farming and marginal-

47

THE CLAIMS

isation of Hauraki in the changing economy so that the likelihood and incidence of ill-health was substantially increased in circumstances where the Crown knew or ought to have known that its land acquisition policy would result in the consequences set out herein.

(e) The refusal by the Crown to halt land purchasing, and the active pursuit by the Crown of the purchase of reserved lands, at a time when the links between land loss and increased ill-health and malnutrition were known and had been acknowledged.

(f) The operation by the Crown of a discriminatory health policy in the district in that inadequate provision was made for Maori health in comparison to provision for Pakeha health, when it was well known that Maori health needs in the district were considerably greater than Pakeha health needs.

(g) The inadequate provision by the Crown for the health needs of Maori in the district despite ample evidence of acute needs, including:

1. The failure and/or refusal of the Crown in 1898 to promptly provide relief, and to provide sufficient relief so as to relieve distress suffered by Hauraki, when confronted with evidence of the serious food shortages faced by Hauraki.

2. The exploitation by the Crown of the desperate circumstances of Hauraki during the Anglo-Maori wars through the offer of relief in exchange for submission of Hauraki to the Crown's authority and Hauraki lands to the Queen's writ.

Economic

(h) The continued subordination by the Crown of Hauraki interests in favour of the interests of the Pakeha community and colonial economy.

3.17 Taonga

1.  The acquisition by the Crown of the taonga and cultural property of Hauraki and the holding of these taonga in museums and galleries throughout New Zealand and the world.

2.  The continued desecration in those institutions of such taonga through neglect and disrespect.

The claimants ask for leave to amend this statement of claim, should that be required, in the light of further evidence and submissions.

48

Chapter 3

THE CLAIMS

The original claims WAI 100, 373, 374, 650 are reproduced in the following pages. They have been taken from the Register of Claims available at the Waitangi Tribunal.

49

THE CLAIMS

30 April 1987

The Registrar

Waitangi Tribunal Databank House 175 The Terrace WELLINGTON

Dear Sir,

This is to inform you that the Hauraki tribes intend to place certain

matters before the Waitaingi Tribunal.

I enclose a copy of the Hauraki people's affadavit which we hurriedly prepared to meet the deadline for the Court of Appeal Hearing set down for the 4th May, relating to the transfer of Crown Land to State Owned Enterprises.

In the affadavit are outlined the areas thought to be relevant to the Court of Appeal. I have since heard from the NZMC advisors that three specific cases, namely Tairua (S.9), Ohinau (S.16), Motutere A (5.6) embodied in the affadavit Schedules, did not meet the criteria needed as test cases for the' Court of Appeal.

Despite this I consider that these cases, plus others referred to in the affadavit, are examples of the injustices perpetrated in the last century and as such need to be declared before the Waitangi Tribunal together with all the others therein.

Time has not permitted the people to set out their claims to the Waitangi Tribunal in detail. It may well be that all the claims in the affadavit

50

Chapter 3: The Claims

2..

Schedules will be brought together under one comprehensive claim. This issue has still to be decided.

In the meantime we attach copies of:

1.  The Court of Appeal Affadavit from the Hauraki Tribes

2.  Judge McCormacks's Report relating to Petitions made in 1931, 1934-35 entitled "The Native Purposes Act,1935"

3.  "Report by Mr Mackay on the Thames Gold Fields"

The above documents will form the basis of Hauraki's claims together with others which, with further research, will help clarify the major concern.

Yrs sincerely,

Mr Huhurere Tukukino

Te Puru P.O. THAMES COAST

51

THE CLAIMS

52

Chapter 3: The Claims

53

THE CLAIMS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

WELLINGTON REGISTRY   CP   /87

BETWEEN   THE NEW ZEALAND MAORI COUNCIL

a body established by Section 17 of the Maori Community Development Act 1962

FIRST APPLICANT

AND   GRAHAM STANLEY LATIMER of Paparoa, Farmer, suing on behalf of himself and all persons entitled to the protection of Article 11 of the Treaty of Waitangi

SECOND APPLICANT

AND   HER MAJESTY'S ATTORNEY–GENERAL sued on behalf of the Crown in respect of the Departments of Maori Affairs, Lands and survey, Internal Affairs, the New Zealand Forest Service, the New Zealand Electricity Department and the Ministry of Energy

FIRST RESPONDENT

AND   THE HONOURABLE THE MINISTER OF FINANCE, THE HONOURABLE THE MINISTER OF ENERGY, THE HONOURABLE THE MINISTER OF LANDS, THE HONOURABLE THE MINISTER OF FORESTS

SECOND RESPONDENTS

AND   HIS EXCELLENCY THE GOVERNOR–GENERAL IN COUNCIL

THIRD RESPONDENT

AFFIDAVIT OF HUHURERE TUKUKINO

HUHURERE TUKUKINO of Te Puru, Retired, hereby make oath and say:

1.   THAT I am by Maori custom recognised as the principal elder of the tribes of Marutuahu.

2.   THAT those tribes are currently represented by the Hauraki Maori Council but are promoting creation of a new Maori Trust Board under the title Te Rununganui O Hauraki.

54

Chapter 3: The Claims

2

3.   THAT the Hauraki Maori Council region includes lands on either side

of the Firth of Thames; Coastal land about Tamaki, Waiheke and adjacent

islands; the whole of the Coromandel Peninsula southwards to about

Katikati; Offshore islands including the Mercury Islands and the southern portion of Great Barrier.

4.   THAT at a meeting of the elders of the Marutuahu tribes; of Ngati

Nagti Pukemga, Ngati hako Hei/and those of Ngati Porou who reside within Hauraki held at Paeroa on the 11th day of April 1987 a resolution was carried unanimously to support The New Zealand Maori Council and Graham Stanley Latimer the First and Second applicants in these proceedings.

5.   THAT those elders believe that the transfer of Crown assets and liabilities to State Enterprises in terms of Part IV of the State Owned Enterprises Act 1986 will be prejudicial to their relationship to the Crown and to equitable claims they may have against the Crown.

6.   THAT not all of those claims could be brought before the Waitangi Tribunal or sustained otherwise than because of the relationship between Her Majesty the Queen and her subjects the Maori people of Hauraki.

7.   THAT in those cases where a claim has not been already submitted under Section 6 of the Treaty of Waitangi Act before the State Owned Enterprises Act 1986 received or did receive the Governor General's consent, the claim has not yet been made because of the difficulties encountered in researching records of early land transactions and in assessing and reconciling accounts of such transactions handed down to our people by their forbears.

8.   THAT formulation of claims which could be brought under Section 6 of the Treaty of Waitangi Act will involve a great deal of painstaking research and investigation and so also will formulation of those which can be brought only on an equitable basis.

9.   THAT with the assistance of elders of the various tribes involved I have endeavoured to set out in the schedules annexed hereto, some of the claims which we believe should be considered before assets of the Crown are transferred under the Act

55

THE CLAIMS

3

THE SCHEDULE

1.  The claim against the Mining Warden and other offices of the

Crown in regard to the Gold Field reserves. Here on 28th

June 1940 Chief Judge MacCormick reported on investigation of the Ohinemuri Goldfields Administration saying that it appeared that the Maoris had made very bad bargains. He said that had the transactions been subject to judicial review it is unlikely that they would have been approved, at all events without modification.

He said "If these now under consideration are to be challenged now on the ground of insufficient consideration, the same argument might be applied to practically all the early purchases. But these present ones are in a special position owing to the existence of the prior deeds of cession. I agree with the contention of
Counsel for the natives that these transactions, if between subjects, would not stand if brought for review by a Court or tribunal of competent jurisdiction unless it was shown that the Natives were competently advised as to the whole facts. How far that may have been done is not ascertainable."

2. The claim for return of Maori land ceded for gold mining about 1856. A settlement of this claim has been negotiated and has bean accepted by owners of eleven of the fifteen blocks of Maori land subject to Resident Site Licences granted under the Mining Acts.   Final settlement requires the Crown to retain the Town of Kingston Block, the Matakitaki and Opitomoko Blocks available for vesting in Maori owners who are not agreeable to accept compensation in money.

3.  There is potentially a further claim for compensation arising from the fact that the Crown failed to surrender many ceded lands when they ceased to be required for gold mining purposes with the result that Maori owners were induced to sell to the Crown at prices depressed because the resident site licences and other licences under the Mining Acts diminished the right to effective possession and enjoyment of those lands by Maori owners.

56

4

4. That it appears that many blocks of Maori land were sold to the Crown at prices less than could have been realised from private purchasers because of restrictions placed upon the alienation of freehold titles because the owners supported enterprises such as forestry which they believed would provide employment for their dependents or improvement of their own circumstances or enhance the value of neighbouring

lands they reserved from sale.   An example is the Whangapoua Forest,

5.   That other Maori lands have been sold or gifted by Maori owners to the Crown because they were opposed to any commercial use and, they were told, and believed, that the Crown was the best agency to care for, maintain and preserve those lands in their natural state and again often at prices substantially less than what could have been realised on open market. Examples are the Alderman Islands, the Red Mercury Group and Motu Tapere.

6.   That in other cases Maori owners have reserved on sale of larger lands, places of sacred or historic significance to them from sale to the Crown on the understanding that their rights of access thereto would be acknowledged and protected by the Crown as purchaser even although not specifically defined. An example is Motutere A block.

7.   That there remains a good deal of customary Maori land within Hauraki, that is, land which the Crown holds in trust for the persons entitled thereto by Maori custom.   That several applications to the Maori land Court have also been made under Section 161 of the Maori Affairs Act 1953 and await determination by the Court, and many others are pending.   That we are resolutely opposed to any State Owned Enterprise dealing with any such land.

8.   That in many Maori land titles the Crown has a substantial undivided interest in the freehold estate in some cases acquired by purchase and in others apparently to secure money claimed by the Crown or a Department of State. That at present that situation is tolerable because the Crown recognises the fact that the lands remains Maori land by definition under the Maori Affairs Act 1953, but our elders

57

THE CLAIMS

5

are apprehensive that a State Owned Enterprise which became owner

of such interests would, in an attempt to comply with the provisions of the State Owned Enterprises Act, ignore or over—ride the Maori concept of land ownership.

9.    A claim arises from the Waikawau purchase of 44,161 acres more or less in 1879 in that the Crown failed to ensure that areas reserved for the benefit of Maori owners were effectively vested in them or because other lands included in that purchase were disposed of under the Waste Lands Administration/Act 1876. The same may apply to the Ounuora block near Whitianga and the purchase of 36,000 acres at Tairua and many other lands.

10.   That we believe that the process by which the Crown acquired title to Maori land in satisfaction of survey charges or liens requires investigation but there are so many lands involved that research may occupy several months or years.

11.   That we believe that we need time to investigate a transaction or transactions effected in the 1880's whereby Section 16 Block 1X Aroha Survey District was gifted to the Crown subject to conditions and undertakings which have apparently not been honoured.

12.   That in 1871 our people agreed to a sale of large areas of Te Arohe Mountain to the Crown on the understanding that it would be held for the whole nation.   We believe that such land should not be transferred to a State Owned Enterprise without consultation with the descendants of the original vendors.

13.   That we have discovered that although the Crown has dealt with the

Raupuha Block at Matapaua Bay, Whitianga, as its own property,

it has not been able to explain how it acquired title thereto from

the Maori owners.

14.   We need time to investigate how and why the Maori Land Court was

able to declare certain Maori lands to be the property of the Crown.

Examples are Ohinemuri 20A1 of 2758 acres, containing Taumaharua,

the principal fort of Ngatitamatera, so declared. in November, 1892,

58

Chapter 3: The Claims

6

and Ohinemuri No. 2 of 3641 acres so declared in June, 1882.

15.   We believe that the process by which the Crown acquired title to some lands from Europeans whose claim to ownership of Maori land has never been satisfactorily established should be investigated. An example is Taurarahi near Manaia, Coromandel.

16.   We are concerned that land now owned by the Crown after being acquired under the Public Works Act if no longer used for the purpose for which it was acquired, should not be transferred to a State Owned Enterprise until we have investigated the owners' right to have it returned under Section 436 of the Maori Affairs Act 1953.

17.   That we believe that a good deal of land in Forest Parks in our region namely, Kaimai; Athenree; Coromandel; Waihou; Tairua and Whangapoua, a total of some 72,000 hectares was acquired for the benefit of all of the people of New Zealand and that therefore. transfer to a State Owned Enterprise amounts to a beach of that trust.

18.   That we wish to investigate the process by which the Crown acquired title to gold, silver and possibly other minerals in Maori lands.

19.   That we wish also to investigate how the Crown acquired title to the seabed in enclosed bays and gulfs such as the Hauraki Gulf, before any property or rights therein are conveyed to any State Owned Enterprise.

SWORN AT HOROTIU by the said HUHURERE TUKUKINO this 15th day of April. 1987 before me:

A SOLICITOR OF THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

59

THE CLAIMS

IN THE WAITANGI TRIBUNAL

IN THE MATTER OF

The Treaty Of Waitangi Act 1975

AND

IN THE MATTER OF A Claim by Toko Renata Te Taniwha and the Hauraki Maori Trust Board

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

DATED the 1995

The Claimants say:

1.   The First named Claimant is the Chairman of the Second named Claimant and the Second named Claimant is a Maori Trust Board under the Maori Trust Boards Act 1955 having been established by the Hauraki Maori Trust Board Act 1988.

2.   For the purposes of this claim they together represent the iwi known as Ngai Tai; Ngati Hako, Ngai Hei, Ngati Maru, Ngati Porou, Ngati Porou ki Harataunga Ki Mataora, Ngati Pukenga Ki Waiau, Ngati Rahiri Tumutumu, Ngati Tamatera, Ngati Tara Tokanui, Ngati Whanaunga and Patukirikiri ("the Hauraki Iwi').

3.   The Rohe of the Hauraki Iwi includes within it part of the land confiscated by the Crown by ordering Council under the New Zealand Settlements Act 1863 following its invasion of the Waikato ("the Raupatu').

6o

Chapter 3: The Claims

2

4.    The Raupatu also affected Waikato iwi.

5.    The Crown has negotiated a settlement of the claims made by Waikato iwi in respect of the Raupatu and the terms are recorded in a Deed of Settlement made on 22 May 1995 ("the Deed").

6.    The Deed provided that the terms of the settlement would be given effect by way of legislation and as a result on 1 August 1995 the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims Settlement Bill was introduced to Parliament ("the Bill").

7.   The settlement evidenced by the Deed and the Bill gives rise to a number of policies or practices proposed to be adopted by or on behalf of the Crown within the meaning of Section 6 (1) (c) of the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 ("the Policies").

8.    If any or all of the Policies are adopted in their present form it will be a breach of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and the claimants and the Hauraki Iwi will be or are likely to be prejudicially affected.

Particulars

1. The Hauraki claims in respect of the Raupatu which have been filed with the Waitangi Tribunal will be extinguished; or

2.    The Hauraki claims in respect of the raupatu will be prejudiced in the following respects:

(i) The Hauraki interest in Crown, State Owned Enterprise and Crown Forest land within the raupatu area will be inadequately recognised and protected;

61

THE CLAIMS

3

2.  There is insufficient and inadequate protection in respect of Hauraki interests in Crown and State Owned Enterprise land within the Raupatu boundary.

3. Any protections existing for Hauraki in respect of Crown and State Owned Enterprise land within the Raupatu boundary will be able to be removed, by the Crown without reference to Hauraki;

4.  There is no recognition of Hauraki interests in the local Conservation Board;

5.   There is inadequate provision to determine competing Hauraki and Waikato interests in Maramarua Forest;

6.  No provision is made for the return of Maramarua Forest to Hauraki if Waikato are not found to be entitled to the Forest or only entitled to a partial interest; and

7. Hauraki are not treated equally with Waikato in respect of applications for funding of the proceedings to determine their respective interests in Maramarua Forest.

Relief Sought

1.   A finding in accordance with Section 6 of the Act that the Policies are contrary to and fail to give effect of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi to the prejudice of the claimants and Hauraki Iwi.

2.   A recommendation that the Policies should be amended before adoption by the Crown in such manner as the Tribunal thinks fit.

Igpdoc030995g.3

62

Chapter 3: The Claims

4

C.   A recommendation that the costs of this application by met by the Crown.

This statement of claim is filed by JOSEPH VICTOR WILLIAMS solicitor for the Plaintiff of the firm Tunnicliffe Walters Williams, Auckland. The address for service of the abovenamed Plaintiff is Fidelity Life Building, Level 2, 272 Parnell Road, PO Box 37-661/DX CP 31 534, Parnell, Auckland.

Documents for service on the abovenamed Plaintiff may be left at that address for service or may be -

1.   Posted to the Solicitor at PO Box 37661, Parnell; or

2.   Left for the Solicitor at a document exchange for direction to DX CP 31 534; or

3.   Transmitted to the Solicitor by facsimile to (09) 307-1280.

Notification of Claim

This Statement of Claim has been served on the following parties

1.   Office of Treaty Settlements

2.   Crown Law Office

3.   Ministry in Charge of Treaty Negotiations

4.   Tainui Maori Trust Board

5.   Denise Henare, Solicitor

Igpdoc030995g.4

63

THE CLAIMS

BEFORE THE WAITANGI TRIBUNAL

WAI

IN THE MATTER Of the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 (as amended)

A N D

IN THE MATTER of the Tainui Raupatu
claim

A N D

IN THE MATTER Of claims to the Waitangi Tribunal by Toko Renata Te Taniwha and the Hauraki Maori Trust Board on behalf of themselves and on behalf of its constituent iwi within the terms of the Maori Trusts Board Act 1955

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

THE CLAIMANTS, on behalf of themselves and of the Hauraki tribes and their members claim:

1.  THAT the Hauraki Maori Trust Board ("the Board") is a Maori Trust Board within the meaning of the Maori Trust Boards Act 1955 having been established by the Hauraki Maori Trust Board Act 1988.

2.    THAT by virtue of section 4 of the 1988 Act, the Board is the statutory representative of the 12 Hauraki Iwi, namely:

Ngati Hako, Ngati Hei, Ngati Maru, Ngati Paoa, Patukirikiri, Ngati Porou ki Harataunga ki Mataora, Ngati Pukenga ki Waiau, Ngati Rahiri-Tumutumu, Ngai

64

Chapter 3: The Claims

2 -

Tai, Ngati Tamatera, Ngati Tara Tokanui, and Ngati Whanaunga.

3.   THAT by virtue of this Tribunal's report on South Auckland Railway lands, it is now accepted that the Board represents the Marutuahu tribes generally for the purposes of negotiation and consultation with the Crown.

4.  THAT certain of the Hauraki iwi have interests in the lands within the Maramarua State Forest ("the forest") and surrounding hands presently subject to the Tainui Raupatu Claim such lands being within the Hauraki boundary. These lands are set out and described in the schedule and map attached to this statement of claim.

5.    THAT these interests arise out of the customary rights including Manawhenua traditionally exercised by Hauraki iwi.

6.  THAT the Crown has entered into negotiations with the Tainui Maori Trust Board in order to settle the Tainui Raupatu and that the forest and certain of the surrounding lands together With financial compensation and/or land in lieu are likely to form a part of any settlement.

7.  THAT the Crown has not undertaken any consultation or negotiation with the Board or its constituent iwi in respect of their customary interests in the said lands.

8.  THAT the claimants will be prejudicially affected by any settlement between the Crown and the Tainui Maori Trust Board which fails to take full and proper account of the customary interests enjoyed by the Hauraki iwi in the said lands.

Relief Sought by the Claimants:

1.   A recommendation that no settlement of the Tainui

65

THE CLAIMS

- 3 -

Raupatu claims be proposed by the Crown unless and until:

1.    the Crown recognises and takes full and proper account of the Hauraki interests in the said lands; and

2.  The Crown enters into direct negotiations with the Board on behalf of its constituent iwi with a view to settling that portion of the Tainui Raupatu claim affecting Hauraki interests; and

3.  Any proposal for general settlement of Tainui Raupatu claim takes full and proper account of the Hauraki interest.

2.    A recommendation that no settlement of the Tainui Raupatu claim be effected without the full and informed consent of the Board.

3.    A recommendation that the costs of this claim, including the costs of the claimants be met by the Crown.

DATED at Auckland this day of August 1993.

Toko Renata Te Taniwha

For and on behalf of the

Hauraki Maori Trust Board and the Hauraki tribes and their members

66

Chapter 3: The Claims

- 4 -

To:   The Registrar: Waitangi Tribunal

To:   Denese Henare, Solicitor

To:   Treaty of Waitangi Policy Unit

This statement of claim is filed by JOSEPH VICTOR WILLIAMS, Solicitor whose address for service is 22 Fanshawe Street, Auckland.

67

THE CLAIMS

Schedule 1

The Hauraki lands are all those lands to the west of the Hauraki Boundary line identified on the attached "Map 1".

The Maramarua State Forest is all that area of land shown on the attached "Map 2" and edged in green.

68

Chapter 3: The Claims

69

THE CLAIMS

70

Chapter 3: The Claims

BEFORE THE WAITANGI TRIBUNAL

IN THE MATTER of the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 (as amended)

A N D

IN THE MATTER of the Tainui Raupatu claim

A N D

IN THE MATTER of claims to the Waitangi Tribunal by TOKO RENATA TE TANIWHA and the HAURAKI MAORI TRUST BOARD on behalf of themselves and on behalf of its constituent iwi within the terms of the Maori Trusts Board Act 1955

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

KENSINGTON SWAN SOLICITORS

AUCKLAND & WELLINGTON Mr J V Williams

Phone No (09) 379 4196

Fax (09) 309 4276 Private Bag 92101 DX 57 Auckland

71

THE CLAIMS

BEFORE THE WAITANGI TRIBUNAL

IN THE MATTER of the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 (as amended)

A N D

IN THE MATTER of the AUCKLAND CENTRAL RAILWAYS LANDS

AND

IN THE MATTER of claims to the Waitangi Tribunal by TOKO RENATA TE TANIWHA and the HAURAKI MAORI TRUST BOARD on behalf of themselves and on behalf of the Hauraki Tribes and their members

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

THE CLAIMANTS, on behalf of themselves and the Hauraki Tribes and their members claim:

1.    THAT the Hauraki Maori Trust Board ("the Board") is a Maori Trust Board within the meaning of the Maori Trust Boards Act 1955 having been established by the Hauraki Maori Trust Board Act 1988.

2.    THAT by virtue of section 4 of the 1988 Act, the Board is the statutory representative of the 12 Hauraki iwi, namely:

Ngati Hako, Ngati Hei, Ngati Maru, Ngati Paoa, Patukirikiri, Ngati Porou ki Harataunga ki Mataora, Ngati Pukenga ki Waiau, Ngati Rahiri-Tumutumu, Ngai Tai, Ngati Tamatera, Ngati Tara Tokanui, and Ngati

WAI

72

Chapter 3: The Claims

2.

Whanaunga.

3.    THAT certain of the Hauraki iwi represented by the Board have interests in the lands known as the Auckland Central railways lands and specifically those titles listed in Schedule 1 attached to this Statement of Claim, and publicly notified in the New Zealand Herald on Friday 4 June 1993.

4.    THAT these interests arise out of the traditional rights including Manawhenua traditionally exercised by those iwi.

5.    THAT those of the Board's constituent iwi having interests in the said lands include Ngati Paoa, Ngati Tamatera, Ngati Maru, Ngati Whanaunga and Ngai Tai Ki Umupuia.

6.    THAT the existence of those interests is confirmed by oral tradition and documentary historical evidence.

7.    THAT these lands are presently owned by New Zealand Railways Corporation ("Railcorp") and are subject to Section 27B memorials under the State Owned Enterprises Act 1986 and that Railcorp is seeking to have these memorials removed.

8.    THAT Railcorp proposes to sell the said lands by way of a conditional contract to the Ngati Whatua 0 Orakei Maori Trust Board and Ngati Paoa Whanau Trust.

9.    THAT an agreement has been entered into between Railcorp and both the Ngati Whatua o Orakei Trust Board and Whanau Trust, providing for the withdrawal of all claims by iwi to surplus railways land in central Auckland; and for the payment of $4 million by the Crown to Ngati Whatua Whanui and of $1 million to Ngati Paoa in settlement of all claims to these railway lands.

73

THE CLAIMS

3.

10.   THAT an arrangement appears to have been entered into with other Maori interests involving the withdrawal of claims by those interests.

11.   THAT despite its bona fide interest in the lands neither the Board nor its constituent iwi have been consulted by the Crown or Railcorp; nor have the Board or its constituent iwi participated in any negotiations, discussions or arrangements in respect of the surplus railway lands described in Schedule 1.

12.   THAT the claimants will be prejudicially affected by this proposed settlement and by any act or policy of the Crown and Railcorp to remove the memorials and to transfer the titles to the said lands.

Relief Sought by the Claimants

That this Tribunal find and recommend:

(a) That the memorials on the lands referred to in Schedule 1 and the application for removal by the New Zealand Railways Corporation, remain on the titles and not be removed unless:

1.    The Hauraki Maori Trust Board and the Hauraki iwi consent to any such proposal or arrangement;

2.  The Crown negotiates with the Hauraki iwi having interests in the Auckland Central railways lands through the Hauraki Maori Trust Board to ensure that Hauraki interests in the Auckland Central surplus railway lands are protected;

3.  The Waitangi Tribunal has heard the claim of

74

Chapter 3: The Claims

4.

the Hauraki iwi (WAI100) and the Crown has considered its recommendations, or until the claim has been resolved by negotiations between the claimants and the Crown.

(b)   That the costs of this claim including the costs of the claimants be met by the Crown.

DATED at Auckland this day of August 1993

Toko Renata Te Taniwha

for and on behalf of the Hauraki Maori Trust Board and the Hauraki Tribes.

To:   The Registrar, Waitangi Tribunal

To:   Treaty of Waitangi Policy Unit

To:   Buddle Findlay, Barristers and Solicitors: Attention: Carey Wainwright

To:   C.J. McGuire, Solicitor for Ngati Whatua O Oraki Maori Trust Board

To:   Ngati Paoa Whanau Trust: Attention: Hariata Gordon

This Statement of Claim is filed by JOSEPH VICTOR WILLIAMS whose address for service is at 22 Fanshawe Street, Auckland.   5at

75

THE CLAIMS

BEFORE THE WAITANGI TRIBUNAL

IN THE MATTER of the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 (as amended)

A N D

IN THE MATTER of the AUCKLAND CENTRAL RAILWAYS LANDS

A N D

IN THE MATTER of claims to the Waitangi Tribunal by TOKO RENATA TE TANIWHA and the HAURAKI MAORI TRUST BOARD on behalf of themselves and on behalf of the Hauraki Tribes and their members

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

KENSINGTON SWAN SOLICITORS

AUCKLAND & WELLINGTON

Mr J V Williams

Phone No (09) 379 4196

Fax (9) 309 4276 Private Bag 92101 DX 57 Auckland

76

Chapter 3: The Claims

WAI

BEFORE THE WAITANGI TRIBUNAL

IN THE MATTER of the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 ( as amended)

AND

IN THE MATTER of the Tauranga Raupatu Claims

AND

IN THE MATTER of claims to the Waitangi Tribunal by Toko Renata Te

Taniwha and the

Hauraki Maori Trust Board on behalf of themselves and on behalf its constituent Iwi within the terms of the Maori Trusts Board Act 1955

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

THE CLAIMANTS, on behalf of themselves and of the Hauraki tribes and their members claim:

1.   THAT the Hauraki Maori Trust Board ( "the Board") is a Maori Trust Board within the meaning of the Maori Trust Boards Act 1955 having been established by the Hauraki Maori Trust Board Act 1988.

2.   THAT by virtue of section 4 of the 1988 Act, the Board is the statutory representative of the 12 Hauraki Iwi, namely:

Ngati Hako, Ngati Hei, Ngati Maru, Ngati Paoa, Patukirikiri, Ngati Porou ki Harataunga ki Mataora, Ngati Pukenga ki Waiau, Ngati Rahiri- Tumutumu, Ngai Tai, Ngati Tamatera, Ngati Tara Tokanni, and Ngati Whanaunga.

77

THE CLAIMS

2

3.   THAT by virtue of this Tribunal's report on South Auckland Railway lands, it is now accepted that the Board represents the Marutuahu tribes generally for the purposes of negotiation and consultation with the Crown.

4.   THAT certain of the Hauraki Iwi have interests in the lands within the Athenree State Forest ("the forest" ) and surrounding lands known generally as the Katikati - Te Puna Purchase ( " the lands") presently subject to the Tauranga Raupatu Claims such lands and forest being within the Hauraki boundary. These lands and forest are set out and described in the schedule and map attached to this statement of claim.

5.   THAT these interests arise out of the customary rights including Manawhenua traditionally exercised by Hauraki Iwi.

6.   THAT the Crown has either entered into negotiations with the Tauranga Moana Trust Board and other claimants in order to settle the Tauranga Raupatu or is to participate in a process before the Waitangi Tribunal which will have as an outcome the return of the Athenree State Forest and certain of the lands together with financial compensation and / or land in lieu which are likely to form a part of any settlement

7.   THAT the Crown has not undertaken any consultation or negotiation with the Board or its constituent Iwi in respect of their customary interests in the said lands and forest.

8.   THAT the claimants will be prejudicially affected by any settlement between the Crown and the Tauranga Moana Trust Board which fails to take full and proper account of the customary interests enjoyed by the Hauraki Iwi in the said lands and forest.

RELIEF SOUGHT BY THE CLAIMANTS:

1.   A recommendation that no settlement of the Tauranga Raupatu claims be proposed by the Crown unless and until:

(i)   the Crown recognises and takes full and proper account of the Hauraki interests in the said lands and forest; and

(ii)   the Crown enters into direct negotiations with the Board on behalf of its constituent Iwi with a view to settling that portion of the Tauranga Raupatu claim affecting Hauraki interests; and

(iii)   any proposal for general settlement of Tauranga Raupatu claims takes full and proper account of the Hauraki interest

2.    A recommendation that no settlement of the Tauranga Raupatu claims be effected without the full and informed consent of the Board.

78

Chapter 3: The Claims

3

3.   A recommendation that the costs of this claim, including the costs of the claimants be met by the Crown.

DATED at Wellington this day of December 1996.

Toko Renata Te Taniwha

For and on behalf of the Hauraki Maori Trust Board and the Hauraki tribes and their members.

To: The Registrar , Waitangi Tribunal To: The Office of Treaty Settlements

This statement of claim is filed by TERRENCE JOHN MC ENTEER, Consultant whose address for service is PO BOX 10Q79, The Terrace

Wellington.

79

Chapter 3: The Claims

"MAP 1"

HAURAKI LANDS NORTH OF BOUNDARY LINE

81

THE CLAIMS

"MAP 2"

ATHENREE STATE FOREST

82

Chapter 4
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The record of responsible protest by Hauraki leaders in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries is clearly described in the accompanying volumes which record the history of the Hauraki land claims. Letters of protest, petitions, action committees, special representations to Parliament and Ministers of the Crown, major hui and court actions were some of the methods employed by Hauraki leaders of the past in attempting to resolve the Treaty grievances. The special contributions of Huhurere Tukukino and Mairehau Williams are beyond measure.

E mihi tenei kia ratou nga rangatira kua wehea atu ki te po. Na ratou o aua wa i whakatakototia te kaupapa e pa ana ki o ratou taonga tuku iho. Na ratou te kakano i ruia.

Na to ratou tohetohe waiho ma tenei whakatupuranga hei puawaitia o ratou moemoea.

This is a tribute to those rangatira who have now passed on. They, who in their time established the principles relating to the recovery of their possessions. So has the seed been sown.

Because of their unyielding belief, let those of this generation give substance to their dreams.

Since 1988 tribal representatives on the Hauraki Maori Trust Board have provided the political will and support necessary to progress the Hauraki Treaty Claims. Although some trustees have passed on and others resigned, many continue as serving members today. Since 1988 the following tribal leaders have served on the Hauraki Maori Trust Board: Toko Renata, John Linstead, Harry Mikaere, Lully Watene Heemi, Patricia Macdonald, Mapuna Turner, Pani Gage, John Tamihere, Stephen Zister, Kemera Tukukino, Henry de Thierry (deceased), David Peka, Murray Peters, Christine Karu, Whai Ngata, Caroline Williams, Fred Paraku, Desmond Castle, Kahu Mankelow (deceased), Walter Te Moananui, Lawrence Beamish, Sarah Williams (deceased) Edwin Te Moananui, Doreen Royal (deceased), Robert Gage (deceased), Jim Nicholls, and John Reta.

These representatives have been closely advised and their policies effectively managed, initially by Edwin Te Moananui and since 1992, by Josie Anderson, Chief Executive Officer. Their enduring commitment and support of the Board has been matched also by that of John McEntee; Andrea Ngaia, Liane Ngamane, Damien Waitai, Peter Te Moananui and Rawiri Bidois, who together have comprised the management team.

83

THE CLAIMS

In 1990 a special task force was set up by the Hauraki Maori Trust Board in Paeroa and Hamilton under the guidance of Tewi Nicholls, Jack Taiawa, Nora Taiawa, Bob Gage, George Nicholls, Jim Mita and Liane Ngamane. The kaupapa of the task force was to develop an information base focusing on block histories and archival retrieval. The task force consisted of Fred Paraku, Tomo Peeke, Caroline Williams, Puarewa Williams, Pauline Paraku, Marilyn Te Moananui, Frank Waitai, Arama Turner, Phillip Heagney, Doreen Flavell, Graham Coulter and there were many others who lent support when they were able.

In 1993 a team of professional historians and others was assembled, under the direction of the Claims Manager, John McEnteer, and were entrusted with the task of researching and prosecution of the claims. The results of their work are the II volumes and an historical archive together numbering over 40,000 pages of material. Since 1993 the following people have contributed their skills as a part of the team—Dr Robyn Anderson, Professor William Oliver, Professor Russell Stone, Dr David Williams, David Alexander, Louise Furey, Taimoana Turoa, Joe Williams, David Taipari, Mary Gillingham, Suzanne Woodley, Jim McNicholas, Helen Walter, Liane Ngamane, Jeanette Wikaira, Jody Allen, Kylie Brown, and Tom Bennion.

Audit New Zealand has provided an unqualified opinion on all the accounts since this project was established. Computer support was provided by Paul Duignan of Wellington.

Technical services have been provided by the following companies and personnel.

Huia Publishers Limited (Louise Fawthorpe) edited Volumes 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 10 and 11. The First Maori Design Company Limited (Hoani JG Tatu) completed the logo and cover design. Wordset Enterprises (Linda Guinness) typeset the volumes and GP Print, Wellington, scanned and printed the entire work.

The Cartographic Art Company Limited (Barry Bradley) compiled many of the maps and diagrams throughout Volumes 4 and 6 and provided the specifications for the final 3D computer-generated map of the Hauraki region contained in most volumes. Terralink NZ Limited (Keith Hastings and Neil Puller) developed the systems and built the mapping database, time series land alienation maps and display maps, land block illustration maps and built the 3D computer-generated map of Hauraki. Manaaki Whenua Landcare Research (Stella Belliss and Jeremy Cook) supplied the satellite photographic mosaic—Hauraki From Space. Te Puni Kokiri, Ministry of Maori Development, (Glen Webber and Craig Soper) supplied, in digital form, the present Maori freehold and customary land tenure from a new information database under development.

We are indebted to the New Zealand Historical Atlas project, Historical Branch, Department of Internal Affairs (Dr Malcolm McKinnon), for sharing new concepts and advice displaying how the geographic inter-relationships of the Hauraki region from a Maori perspective, portrayed in a 3D map. We have used the concept, adapted and refined our own 3D map version, used it in most volumes and reproduced it as a poster. The

84

Chapter 4: Acknowledgements

Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, Department of Internal Affairs (Dr Angela Ballara and Tairongo Amoamo) provided Maori translation services in relation to the Hauraki Kotahitanga Petition.

The Department of Survey and Land Information, Hamilton region, supplied the countless deeds and plans. Land Information New Zealand in Wellington (Frank O'Leary) found and supplied microfilm copies of plans and deeds when other sources proved elusive.

Permission was obtained to reproduce parts of the collections from the following institutions and private sources—National Archives, Department of Internal Affairs, Wellington and Auckland; Alexander Turnbull Library; the Watene family; and the Taipari whanau.

Since 1989 the Hauraki Maori Trust Board has contributed in kind and cash. It has sought and obtained financial assistance from the following organisations—Crown Forestry Rental Trust; Waitangi Tribunal; Maori Land Information Office—Maori Land Court; and the New Zealand Lottery Grants Board.

Particular mention should go to the Crown Forestry Rental Trust, Nga Kaitiaki Reti Ngahere Karaua, for their financial support over the years and to the Waitangi Tribunal for commissioning work which enabled us to complete the research.

85

APPENDIX 2: Mandate for Prosecution of

Hauraki Claims by Hauraki Maori Trust Board

MANDATE
FOR
PROSECUTION OF HAURAKI CLAIMS
BY
HAURAKI MAORI TRUST BOARD

PARTIES

1. HAURAKI MAORI TRUST BOARD

2. IWI , MARAE AND CLAIMANTS OF HAURAKI WHAANUI

89

THE CLAIMS

THIS PROTOCOL is made on the day of 19

BETWEEN THE HAURAKI MAORI TRUST BOARD a Maori Trust Board established under the Hauraki Maori Trust board Act 1988 ("the Trust Board")

A N D   THE CONSTITUENT IWI, MARAE AND CLAIMANTS OF HAURAKI
listed in the First Schedule.

BACKGROUND

1. The Hauraki Maori Trust Board was established as a Maori Trust Board under the Maori Trust Board's Act 1955 having been established by the Hauraki Maori Trust Board Act 1988. The Constituent iwi represented on the Trust board are the 12 iwi listed in the First Schedule.

2. The members of the Trust Board are the duly elected representatives of those 12 iwi within Hauraki. The representatives are authorised by their iwi to represent them on the Trust board.

3. The tupuna marae of the Hauraki iwi are enduring institutions providing a focal point for the communities which make up the hapu and iwi of Hauraki. The marae are listed in the Second Schedule.

4. The Trust Board, on behalf of the iwi, hapu and marae of Hauraki has lodged a claim to the Waitangi Tribunal in respect of all breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi by the Crown within the Hauraki rohe. This claim is known as WAI 100 and is the comprehensive claim relating to the Hauraki area.

5. In addition to the WAI 100 claim, other claims have been lodged by other claimants affecting lands, resources and taonga within the Hauraki rohe. These further claims are listed in the Third Schedule. Together with WAI 100, these claims make up the Hauraki claims.

6.  The iwi, the tupuna marae of Hauraki and certain other claimants wish to record in this protocol their support for the Trust Board in order that the Trust Board may act on their behalf in the prosecution of the Hauraki claims.

HAU.GOLD.MANDATE.rckdoc2

90

Appendix 2: Mandate for Prosecution of Hauraki Claims by Hauraki Maori Trust Board

G. In recording their authorisation to the Trust Board, the signatories confirm that they are duly authorised by the iwi, tupuna marae and claimant groups of Hauraki to give such authorisation.

THIS PROTOCOL records:

1.  MANDATE

1.1 Each iwi referred to in the First Schedule; the marae referred to in the Second Schedule and the claimants referred to in the. Third Schedule authorise the Trust Board to prosecute the WAI 100 claim and such other claims as are set out in the Third Schedule until hearings in the Waitangi Tribunal are completed and (up until such completion) to consult, negotiate or deal with the Crown or third parties in respect of any ancillary matter relating to such claims.

1.2 In consideration of this authority, the Trust Board undertakes to consult regularly with the iwi, tupuna marae and claimants in respect of the Hauraki claims; to identify any concerns they may have and address them wherever possible; and to act so as to protect and enhance the interests of the iwi, hapu, marae and claimants of Hauraki in leading the Hauraki claims.