Search Inquiry Documents

He Whenua Karapotia, He Whenua Ngaro: Priority Report on Landlocked Māori Land in the Taihape Inquiry District is an early outcome of the Taihape: Rangitīkei ki Rangipō district inquiry. The Tribunal reported on landlocking as a matter of priority because it was a pressing issue in the inquiry district; more than 70 per cent of remaining Māori land holdings in Taihape – exceeding 50,000 hectares – were landlocked at the time of inquiry.

 

The broader Taihape district inquiry encompasses 46 historical claims about Crown actions and omissions in the area known as Inland Pātea, west of the Ruahine ranges and south of the Kaimanawa mountains. Hearings took place from 2016 to 2020. The inquiry panel comprised Justice Layne Harvey (presiding), Dr Paul Hamer, Dr Monty Soutar, and Professor Tā Pou Temara. Sir Douglas Kidd and the late Dr Angela Ballara were former panellists.

 

He Whenua Karapotia, He Whenua Ngaro considers whether the Crown was responsible for landlocking of Māori land in the inquiry district – which largely occurred between 1886 and 1912 – and has provided adequate remedies for the problem since. It also considers whether localised Crown actions in the 1980s and 1990s compounded access difficulties for some claimants with landlocked land.

 

On the first issue, the Tribunal concludes that landlocking occurred in Taihape because the Crown did not require the Native Land Court to preserve access to Māori land as it was partitioned. Upon the sale or lease of a partition with road access, therefore, blocks of Māori land lying beyond it usually became landlocked. Although from 1886 Māori could apply for access to their land as it passed through the court (or within five years thereafter), these measures were ineffective because they still gave the court discretion on whether to grant access and required Māori to pay the large cost of creating any access granted. The Tribunal finds that the Crown’s general failure to address the risk of landlocking in its native land legislation before 1912 breached the principles of active protection, partnership, and equity, and the expectation that Māori apply to the court to retain access to their own land, and pay for it, also undermined the Treaty guarantee of ‘full exclusive and undisturbed possession’ of land.

 

On the second issue, the Crown conceded that its remedies for landlocked Māori land from 1912 to 1975 were ineffective, inequitable, and indirectly discriminated against Māori. During this period, the Native Land Court/Māori Land Court could order retrospective access to landlocked Māori land. But, if the neighbouring land to be crossed had left Māori ownership before 1913, the court had no power to order access or could do so only with the neighbouring owner’s consent. This restriction in the law effectively removed the court’s ability to restore access to landlocked Māori land in Taihape, which had almost entirely become landlocked – as neighbouring land was sold – before 1913. While it accepts the Crown’s concessions, the Tribunal finds that the failure of the Crown’s remedies in this period breached the principle of redress.

 

The report goes on to conclude that, despite legislative improvements, the Crown’s remedies since 1975 have remained ineffective for Māori with landlocked land in Taihape. The key flaw in these remedies, the report argues, is that they have continued to place the huge cost of restoring access onto the owners of landlocked Māori land. This approach has been not only ineffective but unfair, treating the landowners no differently than owners of general land seeking to access landlocked land they have purchased. The Tribunal finds that the Crown’s failure to provide fair and effective remedies since 1975 breached the principles of equity and redress.

 

On localised issues, the Tribunal finds that the Crown ignored opportunities to enhance access to some landlocked Māori land in the 1980s and 1990s, when it negotiated better access to its nearby conservation land, and that this failure breached Treaty principles. The Crown also conceded that it breached Treaty principles by failing to consult the owners of neighbouring landlocked Māori land when it acquired certain blocks for defence purposes.

 

The Tribunal finds that whānau and hapū of the Taihape district have been significantly prejudiced by the lack of ready access to much of their remaining land, which has undermined their opportunities for economic development, their ability to exercise kaitiakitanga, and the intergenerational transmission of mātauranga relating to these lands.

 

To redress the prejudice caused by its Treaty breaches, the report recommends that the Crown establish a contestable fund to which Māori owners of landlocked land in Taihape can apply to achieve access. The fund would pay for access that may be granted by the Māori Land Court, including any compensation payable to neighbouring landowners. The Tribunal recommends that funds for this purpose should not be taken from the sum set aside to settle the district’s historical claims.