Appendix Two: Inquiry Timetable, 21 Sept 20
Wai 2915 - the Oranga Tamariki Urgent Inquiry
Draft transcript for the Wai 2915 Oranga Tamariki Judicial Conference held on 27 August 2020 (via Zoom), 22 Sept 20
Wai 2915 - the Oranga Tamariki Urgent Inquiry
Statement of claim, 14 Sep 20
Wai 3008 - Bail Amendment Act (Mita) Claim
The Development of Crown Policy on the Purchase of Māori Lands,1865-1910
Combined Central North Island Regional Inquiry
Overview Report from Judith Binney, Encircled Lands Part Two: A History of the Urewera 1878 – 1912, June 2002 (Also recorded as Wai 814, #I2)
Wai 894 - Combined Record of Inquiry for the Urewera District Inquiry
Research report by Professor Jeffrey Sissons on ‘Waimana Kaaku, A Hisotry of the Waimana Block’, (A report for the Crown Forestry Rental Trust), June 2002
Wai 894 - Combined Record of Inquiry for the Urewera District Inquiry
Report by Brent Parker, ‘Tahora No. 2 Block’, January 2005 (Wai 814, I4)
Wai 894 - Combined Record of Inquiry for the Urewera District Inquiry
Memorandum-Directions of the Presiding Officer regarding the late filing of evidence and granting an extension to the Crown to file evidence relating to Issues One and Two, 21 Sept 20
Wai 2522 - The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (Reid and others) Claim
J McLellan, Supporting papers to John McLellan’s Tribunal commissioned report “Raupatu and Compensation in the North-Eastern Bay of Plenty, 1865-1874” (Wai 1750, #A3), 3 Sep 20
Wai 1750 - North Eastern Bay of Plenty District
The Maniapoto Mandate Inquiry Report
Wai 2858, the Maniapoto Mandate Inquiry
The Maniapoto Mandate Inquiry Report was originally released in pre-publication form on 11 December 2019. It was the outcome of 10 claims made on behalf of individuals, whānau, hapū and hapū collectives. The central issue in this inquiry was whether the Crown breached the Treaty of Waitangi in recognising the Maniapoto Māori Trust Board’s mandate to negotiate the Ngāti Maniapoto settlement of historic Treaty claims with the Crown.
The hearings, held under urgency, took place in Hamilton in July 2019 with closing submissions heard in September 2019. The panel appointed to hear the claims was comprised of Judge Sarah Reeves (presiding officer), Professor Pou Temara and Dr Aroha Harris.
In December 2016, the Crown officially recognised the Maniapoto Māori Trust Board as having secured a mandate from the people of Ngāti Maniapoto to enter settlement negotiations on their behalf. The claimants alleged that the Crown’s actions, in particular the implementation of the ‘Broadening the Reach’ strategy and insufficient opportunities to voice opposition, prevented the claimants from asserting their tino rangatiratanga.
Another central theme of opposition to the Maniapoto Māori Trust Board’s mandate was that its deed of mandate did not make appropriate accommodation for hapū rangatiratanga, in contrast to the structure and approach of the entity originally established to seek the mandate, Te Kawau Mārō. Furthermore, some claimants took specific issue with either the absence or inclusion of their whānau, hapū and Te Rohe Pōtae historical claims in the claimant definition set out in the deed of mandate.
In the report, the Tribunal’s overall finding was that the Crown’s recognition of the Maniapoto Māori Trust Board’s mandate was reasonable given the Trust Board’s level of support, infrastructure and extensive involvement in previous settlements. It was also reasonable given that, prior to September 2016, the Crown had conducted lengthy discussions in good faith with Te Kawau Mārō.
However, the Tribunal found that aspects of the process to recognise the Maniapoto Māori Trust Board’s mandate were not fair nor undertaken in good faith. In particular, the Crown’s implementation of ‘Broadening the Reach’ and its fluctuating position concerning the inclusion of Ngāti Apakura in the deed of mandate breached the principles of partnership, reciprocity and equal treatment. The Tribunal concluded that ‘Broadening the Reach’ in particular prioritised the Crown’s political objectives to complete settlements within a shorter timeframe over its Treaty relationship with Ngāti Maniapoto.
The Tribunal also found that the Maniapoto Māori Trust Board deed of mandate was largely adequate for the purpose of negotiations, provided that the Crown made some amendments to the claimant definition and withdrawal mechanism.
The Tribunal did not recommend a halt to negotiations. Instead it recommended that the Crown provide distinct recognition in the deed of mandate for certain hapū, give serious thought to post-settlement governance entity options to manage and distribute the Ngāti Maniapoto settlement, adjust the resourcing and quantum for the settlement to account for the re-inclusion of Ngāti Apakura, amend the remedies clauses in the deed of mandate, and actively have regard to its whanaungatanga obligations to Ngāti Maniapoto Māori in the Treaty settlement process.