Whaia te Mana Motuhake / In Pursuit of Mana Motuhake: Report … · 2018-02-25 · Whaia te mana...

Whaia te Mana Motuhake

In Pursuit of Mana Motuhake

Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz


Report on the Māori Community Development Act Claim

Whaia te Mana MotuhakeIn Pursuit of Mana Motuhake

W A I T A N G I T R I B U N A L R E P O R T 2 0 1 5

W A I 2 4 1 7



National Library of New Zealand Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

Whaia te mana motuhake = In pursuit of mana motuhake : reporton the Māori Community Development Act Claim : Wai 2417 /Waitangi Tribunal.(Waitangi Tribunal report ; 2015)Previously issued online as a preliminary version.Includes bibliographical references.ISBN 978-1-86956-310-3 (print)—ISBN 978-1-86956-313-4 (online)1. New Zealand. Māori Community Development Act 1962.2.Treaty of Waitangi (1840). 3. Māori (New Zealand people)—Legal status, laws, etc. 4. Māori (New Zealand people)—Politics and government. [1. Mana motuhake. reo2. Tiriti o Waitangi. reo 3. Kerēme (Tiriti o Waitangi). reo 4. Ture. reo5. Tino rangatiratanga. reo 6. Kāwanatanga. reo 7. Rōpū Māori. reo8. Wātene Māori. reo] I. Title. II. Series.353.93—dc23

www.waitangitribunal.govt.nzTypeset by the Waitangi TribunalThis report was previously released on the internet in 2014 in electronic pre-publication format as Whaia te Mana Motuhake / In Pursuit of Mana Motuhake : Report on the Māori Community Development Act Claim – Pre-publication VersionPublished by Legislation Direct, Lower Hutt, New ZealandPrinted by Printlink, Lower Hutt, New Zealand19 18 17 16 15 5 4 3 2 1Set in Adobe Minion Pro and Cronos Pro Opticals



v

Contents

Letter of transmittal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvii

Chapter 1 : Te Wero / The Challenge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 .1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 .2 The parties in this inquiry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 .3 essential background information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 .4 The claim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 .5 The current legislative regime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

1 .5 .1 The new Zealand Māori Council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 .5 .2 District Māori Councils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 .5 .3 Māori executive Committees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 .5 .4 Māori Committees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 .5 .5 Community officers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 .5 .6 Māori Wardens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 .5 .7 General administrative provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

1 .6 events leading up to the urgent inquiry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 .6 .1 Procedural background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 .6 .2 Application for adjournment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 .6 .3 Decision on urgency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 .6 .4 statement of issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 .6 .5 Developments following the granting of urgency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 .6 .6 emergence of interested parties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 .6 .7 other pre-hearing matters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

1 .7 The hearing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 .8 Post-hearing developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 .9 our report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Chapter 2 : Te Tiriti me te Whakaputanga o ngā Mana o ngā Iwi Taketake / The Treaty and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212 .1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212 .2 The treaty of Waitangi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212 .3 The treaty’s application to the issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242 .4 treaty principles relevant to our inquiry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24


Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz

vi

Contents

2 .4 .1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242 .4 .2 The treaty exchange : kāwanatanga and rangatiratanga . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

(1) Parties’ arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24(2) our view . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

2 .4 .3 Partnership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28(1) Parties’ arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28(2) our view . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

2 .4 .4 Active protection, informed decision-making, and the duty to consult . . . . . . 30(1) Parties’ arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30(2) our view . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

2 .4 .5 equity and equal treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31(1) Parties’ arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31(2) our view . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

2 .4 .6 The right to development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32(1) Parties’ arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32(2) our view . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

2 .4 .7 summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 322 .5 The United nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

2 .5 .1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 322 .5 .2 The claimants’ case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332 .5 .3 The Crown’s case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 342 .5 .4 our approach to the application of UNDRIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

(1) UNDRIP in the international setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34(2) new Zealand’s affirmation of UNDRIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35(3) UNDRIP in this inquiry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

2 .5 .5 UNDRIP and relevant treaty principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40(1) Kāwanatanga . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40(2) Rangatiratanga . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40(3) Partnership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41(4) Active protection, informed decision-making, and consultation . . . . . . . . . 43(5) equity and equal treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44(6) Right to development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

2 .6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Chapter 3 : Ka Tipu te Whakaaro / A Cherished Thought Emerges . . . . 493 .1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 493 .2 The parties’ arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

3 .2 .1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 503 .2 .2 The Crown’s case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 503 .2 .3 The claimants’ case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50



vii

Contents

3 .3 The quest for Māori self-government : a brief overview, 1840–1952 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 523 .3 .1 The Māori quest for self-government institutions, 1840s–90s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 533 .3 .2 The era of Māori Councils, 1900–39 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 553 .3 .3 The Māori War effort organisation and the origins of the 1945 Act . . . . . . . . . 593 .3 .4 The Māori social and economic Advancement Act 1945 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

3 .4 The forging of an agreement between Māori and the Crown, 1952–69 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 643 .4 .1 seeking an agreement with the national Government, 1952–57 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 643 .4 .2 Unexpected success : national’s election promise, 1957 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 693 .4 .3 seeking an agreement with the Labour Government, 1957–59 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 713 .4 .4 The Dominion Māori Conference, october 1959 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 733 .4 .5 Forging an agreement with the Labour Government, 1959–60 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 763 .4 .6 The agreement between Māori and Labour falls over, october 1960 . . . . . . . . . 833 .4 .7 Forging an agreement with the national Government, 1960–61 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

(1) Delivering on national’s 1960 election promise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84(2) The Provisional Dominion Māori Council amends the Bill, June 1961 . . . . 89(3) The Māori social and economic Advancement Amendment Act 1961 . . . . 92

3 .4 .8 negotiating the Māori Welfare Act, 1962–63 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93(1) The Government decides to overhaul the Māori social and

economic Advancement Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93(2) The inaugural meeting of the new Zealand Māori Council, June 1962 . . . . 96(3) The Māori Welfare Bill 1962 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97(4) The NZMC debates the Māori Welfare Bill, July 1962 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99(5) The nature or extent of ‘self-government’ proposed in 1962 . . . . . . . . . . . . 103(6) The Māori Welfare Bill is substantially revised and introduced into

Parliament, August–December 1962 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105(7) The NZMC’s response to the Māori Welfare Act in 1963 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

3 .4 .9 Forging agreement on the governance of Māori Wardens, 1962–69 . . . . . . . . . 1133 .4 .10 Conclusions about the forging of an agreement between Māori and

the Crown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

Chapter 4 : Te Huarahi ki te Mana Motuhake / The Pathway to Mana Motuhake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1294 .1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1294 .2 The 1960s : a period of mass urbanisation and social transition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130

4 .2 .1 spreading the word : promoting the NZMC’s work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1334 .2 .2 Māori Associations in the context of urbanisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1344 .2 .3 ‘All the canoes are united’ : the NZMC–Crown relationship during the 1960s 1364 .2 .4 ‘A Bird Without Feathers’ – funding the NZMC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1404 .2 .5 NZMC input into changes to the 1962 Act, 1963–71 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142

4 .3 The 1970s : a decade of Māori protest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144



viii

Contents

4 .3 .1 The Crown–NZMC relationship during the 1970s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1464 .3 .2 NZMC’s input into changes to the 1962 Act, 1974–1979 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1494 .3 .3 ngā tūmanako : 1978 national Conference of Māori Committees . . . . . . . . . . 153

4 .4 The 1980s : the Māori cultural renaissance, tribal revitalisation, and bicultural policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1554 .4 .1 tu tangata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1564 .4 .2 The NZMC drafts the Māori Affairs Bill, 1980–83 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156

(1) Discussion Paper on Future Māori Development and Legislation 1980 . . 157(2) Kaupapa 1983 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159(3) The Māori Affairs Bill 1983 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

4 .4 .3 Hui taumata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1604 .4 .4 Pūao-Te-Ata-Tū . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1604 .4 .5 He Tirohanga Rangapū . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1614 .4 .6 Te Urupare Rangapū . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1624 .4 .7 The Rūnanga Iwi Act 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162

4 .5 Important NZMC achievements, 1980s–90s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1634 .5 .1 The transfer of Crown lands to state-owned enterprises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1644 .5 .2 Fisheries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1644 .5 .3 Crown Forests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1664 .5 .4 Radio frequencies and broadcasting assets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1674 .5 .5 electoral Reform Bill and Māori Electoral Option Report, 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1684 .5 .6 The NZMC’s achievements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169

4 .6 The 1990s : treaty settlements and the search for a national Māori Body . . . . . . . . . 1694 .6 .1 Ka Awatea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1694 .6 .2 Historical treaty claims settlement process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1704 .6 .3 Māori search for a national body, 1990s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1714 .6 .4 The 1996 amendments to the 1962 Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1734 .6 .5 Reviewing the Māori Community Development Act, 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173

(1) option 1 : retain the NZMC unmodified (the status quo) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174(2) option 2 : abolish the NZMC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175(3) option 3 : modify or replace the NZMC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175

4 .7 The Māori Representational Landscape of 2000–14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1774 .7 .1 treaty settlements and post-settlement governance entities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1774 .7 .2 The 2000s : the search for a national Māori body . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180

4 .8 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181

Chapter 5 : Aroha ki te Tangata / Service to the People . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1935 .1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1935 .2 essential background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194

5 .2 .1 nineteenth- and early-twentieth century origins of Māori Wardens . . . . . . . . 194



ix

Contents

5 .2 .2 The statutory frameworks for Māori Wardens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194(1) Māori Wardens under the Māori social and economic

Advancement Act 1945 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194(2) Māori Wardens under the Māori Welfare Act 1962 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195

5 .3 Māori Wardens in the context of urbanisation and social change : 1960s–70s . . . . . . 1955 .3 .1 Māori Wardens Associations formed, 1957–67 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1985 .3 .2 Māori Wardens as ‘discrimination’ : the wardens and the United nations

Convention on the elimination of Racial Discrimination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2015 .3 .3 The rise and fall of the first NZMWA, 1967–76 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203

5 .4 Wardens in the era of the cultural renaissance and iwi revitalisation, 1979–99 . . . . 2045 .4 .1 The new Zealand Māori Wardens Association is reformed, 1979 . . . . . . . . . . . 2065 .4 .2 The Labour Government reviews the Māori Wardens, 1980s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207

(1) Warranting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207(2) Funding Māori Wardens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208(3) Calls for autonomy for Māori Wardens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209(4) The Māori Wardens under review, 1985–86 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212

5 .4 .3 Maori Wārdens await devolution to iwi, 1987–91 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2145 .4 .4 The national Government reviews the Māori Wardens, 1991–92 . . . . . . . . . . . 215

5 .5 The Māori Wardens under the review of the Māori Community Development Act, 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218

5 .6 Māori Wardens and their work today . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2205 .7 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224

Chapter 6 : Ka tō te Rā, ka Whiti mai te Haeata / The Sun Sets and a New Dawn Shines Forth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2316 .1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231

6 .1 .1 Reviewing the 1962 Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2316 .1 .2 The structure of this chapter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232

6 .2 The parties’ arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2336 .2 .1 The Crown’s case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2336 .2 .2 The claimants’ case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235

6 .3 The Māori Wardens Advisory Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2386 .3 .1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2386 .3 .2 The Māori Wardens Advisory Group, 2007–09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2396 .3 .3 The tribunal’s findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244

6 .4 The select committee inquiry, 2009–10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2466 .4 .1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2466 .4 .2 select committee findings and TPK’s role as adviser . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2466 .4 .3 tribunal findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249

6 .5 Designing a consultation process, 2010–13 : Crown-led or Māori-led ? . . . . . . . . . . . . 249



x

Contents

6 .5 .1 The Crown’s approach to consultation on the 1962 Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2496 .5 .2 Pre-consultation : the Crown and the NZMC,

April–May 2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2516 .5 .3 The Māori Council is reformed and revitalised, June 2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2546 .5 .4 Pre-consultation with reformed Council, 2012–13 : who to lead the

review and reform of Māori institutions ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2546 .6 The Crown’s decision to proceed with a Crown-led consultation process in 2013 . . . 255

6 .6 .1 The Crown’s decision to proceed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2556 .6 .2 Crown explanation of decision to proceed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2566 .6 .3 Claimant view of Crown decision to proceed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2586 .6 .4 The Crown’s new position in response to consultation and the NZMC’s

treaty claim : ministerial decisions and the Hippolite proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . 2606 .7 The tribunal’s findings on the first limb of the claim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262

6 .7 .1 Agreement by the parties : Māori institutions must be reformed by a Māori-led, not Crown-led, process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262

6 .7 .2 Was the Crown acting in accordance with the principles of the treaty of Waitangi when it decided that the NZMC had a conflict of interest ? . . . . . . . . 263

6 .7 .3 Was the Crown acting in accordance with the principles of the treaty of Waitangi when it decided that circumstances required the review to proceed without waiting for the NZMC to complete its internal reforms ? . . . . . . . . . . . 264

6 .7 .4 Was the Crown’s argument correct that a standard, Crown-led review and consultation process was consistent with treaty principles ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265

6 .7 .5 What was the significance of the changed representational landscape ? . . . . . 2676 .7 .6 How was the principle of options to be applied ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2696 .7 .7 Was the Crown’s argument correct that UNDRIP does not require a Māori-led

review followed by a negotiated agreement in this or other cases ? . . . . . . . . . 270(1) Māori do not seek a right of ‘autonomous decision’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271(2) either party can initiate conversation about a need for review . . . . . . . . . . 271(3) The Māori institutions involved are self-government institutions . . . . . . . 271(4) The Crown can initiate other changes to the Act for discussion and

agreement in partnership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2746 .7 .8 Has prejudice been or is it likely to be suffered by the claimants ? . . . . . . . . . . 2756 .7 .9 Allegations about the 2013 consultation hui . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276

6 .8 The way forward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2776 .8 .1 The details of the Crown’s proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2776 .8 .2 The claimants’ response to the Crown’s proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2786 .8 .3 Points of agreement between the parties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2806 .8 .4 Points of disagreement between the parties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2806 .8 .5 Why does the Crown believe that it should have a say in how a Māori-led

review is organised and conducted ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2816 .8 .6 Is the Crown’s proposal consistent with treaty principles ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282



xi

Contents

Chapter 7 : Te Kaupapa a te Puni Kōkiri / The Māori Wardens Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2937 .1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2937 .2 The parties’ arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294

7 .2 .1 The Crown’s case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2947 .2 .2 The claimants’ case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294

7 .3 The establishment and design of the MWP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2957 .3 .1 How was the project designed and established ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2957 .3 .2 Adjustment of the project’s design : initial roll-out . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3007 .3 .3 Was it reasonable for the Crown to retain direct administration and

control of the MWP’s resources ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3027 .3 .4 The tribunal’s findings about the establishment and design of the MWP . . . . 304

7 .4 Policy and ‘bigger picture’ issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3057 .4 .1 Redesigning Māori Wardens’ roles and functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3057 .4 .2 De facto policy-making ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 308

(1) Has the provision of training programmes through the MWP damaged the kaupapa of the Māori Wardens, including by encouraging an overly close relationship between wardens and the Police ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 308

(2) Has TPK promoted a view, through its MWP, that only persons who are young and fit can be Māori Wardens ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317

(3) The tribunal’s findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3187 .5 Māori community oversight of the MWP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 318

7 .5 .1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3187 .5 .2 Māori community oversight : the MWP Advisory Group and

Governance Board . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3197 .5 .3 The tribunal’s findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323

7 .6 our overall view of the MWP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324

Chapter 8 : Mā te Huruhuru te Manu ka Rere / Feathers Enable Birds to Fly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3318 .1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3318 .2 The parties’ arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3328 .3 Has TPK been inefficient or wasteful in its management of

Government funding allocated to Māori Wardens ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3338 .4 Has the contestable funding available under the MWP been allocated in such a

way as to favour Wardens aligned with Wardens’ associations or the NZMWA ? . . . . 3368 .4 .1 Criteria for contestable funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3368 .4 .2 evidence of the operation of the contestable fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 338

8 .5 Has TPK contravened the 1962 Act in its delivery of funding to Māori Wardens ? . . 344



xii

Contents

8 .6 Has the manner by which funding for Māori Wardens has been allocated through the MWP undermined the capacity of dmcs to exercise their powers of control and supervision over Māori Wardens ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345

8 .7 The tribunal’s findings about MWP funding decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 347

Chapter 9 : Te Whakamana i ngā Wātene / Warranting Wardens . . . . . 3539 .1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 353

9 .1 .1 The Crown’s case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3549 .1 .2 The claimants’ case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3549 .1 .3 The structure of this chapter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 354

9 .2 Claims about the delays in warranting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3559 .2 .1 What is the current process for warranting Māori Wardens ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3559 .2 .2 What has been the extent and impact of delays in processing

Māori Wardens’ warrants ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3589 .2 .3 What factors have contributed to delays in processing

Māori Wardens’ warrants ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3609 .3 Has the Crown accepted nominations from the correct bodies ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 361

9 .3 .1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3619 .3 .2 Have the MWP’s Regional Coordinators interfered with warranting ? . . . . . . . 3629 .3 .3 Has the Crown accepted wardens’ nominations from bodies other than

DMCs, and is it lawful for the Crown to do so ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3639 .3 .4 Has the Crown accepted nominations from DMCs that are not

validly in office ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 365(1) The situation in te tau Ihu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 366(2) The situation in the other inoperative districts : Hauraki, Waikato,

Maniapoto, and tauranga Moana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 371(3) The District Māori Councils-in-waiting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 371

9 .3 .5 Has the Crown declined to accept nominations from a DMC that is validly in office ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 372

9 .4 The tribunal’s findings about warranting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 374

Chapter 10 : Ngā Whakataunga / Findings and Recommendations . . . . 38310 .1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38310 .2 Findings on general issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38410 .3 The review and reform of the 1962 Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 385

10 .3 .1 What chapter 6 was about . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38510 .3 .2 specific findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 386

(1) The MWP Advisory Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 386(2) The select committee inquiry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 386



xiii

Contents

(3) The Crown’s decision in 2013 to proceed with a Crown-led review of the 1962 Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 386(a) Points of agreement between the parties at our hearing . . . . . . . . . . . . 386(b) The tribunal’s findings on points of disagreement between

the parties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 387(c) Prejudice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 387

(4) The Crown’s proposed way forward in 2014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 387(a) Points of agreement between the parties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 387(b) Points of disagreement between the parties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 387(c) The tribunal’s findings on points of disagreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 388

(5) our opinion as to the application of the UNDRIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38810 .4 The ‘bigger picture’ issues in respect of the Māori Wardens Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 388


(1) Aspects of the claim that are not upheld . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 389(2) The claim is well founded in the following respects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 389

(a) Māori community oversight of the MWP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 389(b) Centrally delivered training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 390

(3) our opinion as to the application of the UnDRIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39010 .5 Administration of funding by the Māori Wardens Project team . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 390


(1) The claim is well founded in the following respects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 390(2) Aspects of the claim that are not upheld . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 391(3) our opinion as to the application of the UnDRIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 391

10 .6 nomination, appointment, and warranting of Māori Wardens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39110 .6 .1 What chapter 9 was about . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39110 .6 .2 specific findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 391

(1) The claim is well founded in the following respects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 391(a) The omission to rectify systemic failure in partnership with

the NZMC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 391(b) The Crown’s acceptance of unlawful nominations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 392(c) The situation in Wellington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 392

(2) our opinion as to the application of the UnDRIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39310 .7 summary of findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39310 .8 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 393

10 .8 .1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39310 .8 .2 The review of the Māori Community Development Act 1962 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 393

(1) our view on the way forward for Māori and the NZMC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 393(2) our specific suggestions for Māori and the NZMC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 395(3) our recommendations to the Crown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 395



xiv

Contents

10 .8 .3 The Māori Wardens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 396(1) our recommendations to the Crown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 397(2) our suggestions for the NZMWA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 397

10 .8 .4 our final recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39710 .8 .5 Leave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 397

10 .9 Closing – kapinga . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 397

Appendix i : The Māori Community Development Act 1962 . . . . . . . . . . . . 401

Appendix ii : The Māori Welfare Bill 1962 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 417

Appendix iii : The Māori Welfare Act 1962 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 427

Appendix iv : The Māori Community Development Regulations 1963 . 441

Appendix v : Māori Wardens Project Contestable Funding Programme : TPK Criteria for Evaluating Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 447Funding criteria for Wardens’ groups applying for contestable funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 447Checklist for te Puni Kōkiri regional coordinators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 448

Legal entity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 448Community support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 448sound finances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 448effective governance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 448Five or more warranted wardens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 448

Funding guidelines for regional coordinators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 448

Appendix vi : Te Whakapuakitanga o te Runanga Whakakotahi i ngā Iwi o te Ao mo ngā Tika o ngā Iwi Taketake / United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 451



xv

Contents

Appendix VII : Select Record of Inquiry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 459Record of hearings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 459

The tribunal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 459Counsel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 459The hearing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 459

Record of proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4591 statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 459

1 .1 statements of claim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4591 .4 statements of issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 459

2 tribunal memoranda and directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4602 .5 Pre-hearing stage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4602 .7 Post-hearing stage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 460

3 submissions and memoranda of parties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4603 .1 Pre-hearing stage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4603 .3 opening and closing submissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4613 .4 Post-hearing stage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 461

4 transcripts and translations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4614 .1 transcripts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 461

Record of documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 461A series documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 461B series documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 461C series documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 463

Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 465

select bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 467

Picture credits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 473



xvi

ACKnoWLeDGeMents

The Wai 2417 tribunal would like to thank the many staff and contractors whose assis-tance was valuable to us in the preparation of this report : Paige Bradey and tanumia so’oialo (claims coordination and registrarial) ; Martin Fisher and Christopher Burke (inquiry facilitation) ; Piripi Walker (simultaneous interpretation) ; Ann Beaglehole, Coralie Clarkson, and Craig Innes (research) ; Kylee Katipo (legal research assistance) ; Rachel Patrick and sonya Wynne (report-writing assistance) ; noel Harris (mapping) ; and Dominic Hurley and Jim scott (typesetting) ; as well as Harry Chapman, sarah Burgess, sarah Deeble, sam Hutchinson, Jane Latchem, steven oliver, and Daniel Thompson (ref-erence checking, image location, and other assistance) .



Waitangi TribunalTe Rōpū Whakamana i te Tiriti o WaitangiTākiri te haeata, ka ao, ka awatea, horahia mai ko te ao mārama

Level 7, 141 The Terrace, Wellington, New Zealand. Postal : DX Sx11237Fujitsu Tower, 141 The Terrace, Te Whanganui-ā-Tara, Aotearoa. Pouaka Poutāpeta : DX Sx11237Phone/Waea : 04 914 3000 Fax/Waea Whakaahua : 04 914 3001Email/E-mēra : [email protected] Web/Ipurangi : www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz

xvii

The Honourable te Ururoa FlavellMinister for Māori DevelopmentThe Honourable Michael WoodhouseMinister of PoliceParliament BuildingsWellington

9 June 2015

tēnā kōrua e ngā Minita e noho mai nā i runga i ō kōrua tūnga tiketike . He tokomaha ngā rangatira o te Kaunihera Māori kua ngaro ki te pō ā, kua kore e kitea i te tirohanga kanohi . He kaupapa tēnei nā ratou i poipoi, i whiriwhiri, i wānanga . no reira ka aroha atu ki a rātou, tae atu ki te hunga nā rātou i tautoko te kaupapa i nga tau kua hipa . Moe mai koutou . Anei rā te pūrongo a te Roopu Whakamana i te tiriti o Waitangi, kua puta mai ki te awatea . Kua tukuna atu ki a kōrua, otirā ki ngā Minita katoa o te Whare Paremata . tēnā koutou .

Please find enclosed the Waitangi tribunal’s published report on the claim filed on behalf of the new Zealand Māori Council (NZMC) under section 6(1) of the treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 . This follows the release of the pre-publication version of our report in December 2014 . The claimants alleged that the Crown, through te Puni Kōkiri, in reviewing the Māori Community Development Act 1962 and the role of Māori Wardens, has acted in a manner inconsistent with the principles of the treaty of Waitangi . The claimants further claimed that, in developing and administering the Māori Wardens Project, te Puni Kōkiri breached treaty principles by diminishing or excluding the authority of the NZMC and District Māori Councils to administer Māori Wardens in terms of the 1962 Act and in terms of the compact to which that Act gives effect .

In reaching our findings on the claim, we have considered the relevant principles of the treaty of Waitangi . We are also one of the first tribunals to be asked to consider how, if at all, the



xviii

United nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) has informed those treaty principles, and we give our opinion on the articles of the UNDRIP where relevant .

We have largely upheld the claim and we have concluded, after a full historical review, that the Māori Community Development Act 1962 and its amendments embody a compact that gave statutory recognition and powers to institutions established by the Māori people for their own self-government . This compact was negotiated between 1959 and 1963 by Māori leaders and the Crown . It reflects the Crown’s recognition that Māori rangatiratanga or Māori autonomy and self-government must be protected and provided for at all levels (that is, local, regional, and national), as required by article 2 of the treaty of Waitangi .

We have also traversed the history of the Māori Wardens, and their unique position in the new Zealand legal system prior to and post the 1962 Act . We consider them to be an integral operational component of this system of Māori self-government . But the system of administering the wardens as outlined in the 1962 Act is dated and needs amendment . It has not worked well in all regions . We consider that if the wardens’ opinions and perspectives are not given significant weighting in any review, there is little hope of finding a durable solution to the difficult issues that currently face the Māori Wardens movement . They have, in our view, earned the right to some operational autonomy and that should be accommodated .

In chapters 6 to 9 of our report, we have assessed the claimants’ specific allegations in light of treaty principles . We draw your attention in particular to three of our findings .

First, we have found that the Māori Wardens Project was a laudable attempt to provide resources and training for wardens, but that since early 2011 the project has been run without any Māori community oversight . That is inconsistent with the treaty and has prejudiced the claimants . Also, the project’s funding decisions have been made without any input or oversight by Māori . This too is inconsistent with the treaty .

secondly, we have found that the Crown has allowed systemic failure in the appointment and reappointment of Māori wardens for many years, and has even accepted unlawful nominations rather than carry out its treaty obligation, which is to review and repair the system in partnership with the NZMC .

Thirdly, we have found that the Crown breached treaty principles when it decided in 2013 to proceed with a te Puni Kōkiri led review of the 1962 Act . We note that the Crown and claimants now agree, as they said at our hearing, that any review and reform of this Act must be Māori-led . But the parties do not agree as to who among Māori should lead the review .

While we have largely upheld the claim, we were struck by the changing nature of the representational landscape for Māori . Many iwi and urban authorities have through the settlement process, achieved a degree of self-government, most limited to their settlement or community assets and members, but others reaching into local and regional government participation and decision-making . Alongside the NZMC, there are other national Māori



xix

organisations such as the Iwi Chairs Forum . Despite that, Māori consulted in 2013 during the review of the 1962 Act by te Puni Kōkiri, continued to press for there to be a national Māori organisation, be that a modified NZMC or otherwise .

The NZMC should review and refine its role as a result of the changes in Māori representation, so that it continues to complement rather than compete with iwi and urban Māori autonomy . The Crown’s role in relation to such a review would be to resource the review process and reach a collaborative agreement on the draft legislation produced by the NZMC, after assuring itself that all relevant representational interests have been consulted and their views adequately captured by the NZMC . We have made some suggestions for the NZMC to consider . In particular, we think that the NZMC should hold a national hui to elect an independent working group, which would then consult the necessary Māori groups and institutions and develop recommendations for the NZMC on the basis of that consultation . The NZMC, we propose, would then draft a Bill and funding proposals for negotiation and collaborative agreement with the Crown .

Finally, we note that for much of its existence the NZMC has been said to be a ‘bird without feathers’ . Funding is needed . The history of the Māori pursuit of mana motuhake or Māori self-government and autonomy is a long one, but it has often foundered on the rocks of poverty due to lack of adequate support and funding by the Crown .

Therefore, we make the following primary recommendation that the Crown accept that the recognition of Māori self-government and Māori self-determination reflected in the Māori Community Development Act 1962 must remain in legislation and should underpin all future administration, policy development, and law reform in this area . This is a core feature of the 1962 Act and it should not be detracted from or omitted in any subsequent reforms, only enhanced .

The tribunal further recommends regarding the NZMC that : ӹ Any reform of the 1962 Act should be NZMC-led and negotiated with the Crown . ӹ should the NZMC determine to do so within the next 12 months, the Crown should agree

to fund the development of a strategic direction and consultation process to underpin the NZMC’s review of the 1962 Act, including the role of the NZMC and District Māori Councils in light of current understandings of the Māori representational landscape, and to provide technical assistance if sought .

ӹ Following receipt of a draft Bill and the NZMC’s report on the consultation, the Crown should satisfy itself that the information provided by the NZMC demonstrates a robust con-sultation process and suffices for it to fulfil its obligations to the Māori groups that may be affected by the NZMC’s proposals, seeking any additional information or assurances through the good offices of the NZMC .

ӹ The NZMC will lead that process and the Crown (and indeed both treaty partners) must act reasonably and in accordance with the principle of good faith and cooperation, leading to a collaborative agreement between them on the draft Bill .



xx

ӹ The Crown should agree that implementation of the consultation process should com-mence following the triennial elections in 2015 to give the NZMC time to organise all the District Māori Councils .

ӹ The Crown should commit to legislative amendment and funding, as far as is reasonable, to give effect to the resulting strategic direction and to constitute and maintain the structure of whatever national body by consensus is arrived at following the consultation round .

The tribunal also recommends for the Māori Wardens that : ӹ Until the NZMC reports on its strategic direction and the results of its consultation process,

and any new legislation is enacted, an interim advisory group or governance board should be established to oversee the operations of the Māori Wardens Project . It would be for this group to decide how best to provide for Māori community oversight of funding, centrally delivered training, and all other aspects of the Māori Wardens Project .

ӹ This advisory group be comprised of representatives from the NZMC, the new Zealand Māori Wardens Association, and the te Puni Kōkiri Māori Wardens Project team .

ӹ The Māori Wardens Project continue but in collaboration with the NZMC and the new Zealand Māori Wardens Association through the newly constituted advisory group .

ӹ The Crown urgently negotiate a collaborative agreement with the NZMC and the new Zealand Māori Wardens Association to put in place a temporary warranting regime . This may require the parties to agree on methods of validating invalid warrants, and on the process for appointments and renewal of warrants, until permanent solutions can be found as part of the NZMC’s national consultation and review of the Act . An interim legis-lative amendment may be required to put this temporary regime in place until the scheme for revising the Act as a whole has been negotiated between the Crown and the NZMC . Resourcing will likely be required to ensure an efficient and speedy warranting process .

We hope that the Crown and claimants will be able to reach a collaborative agreement on the basis of our recommendations but we have given leave for the parties to return if further guidance is required .

Deputy Chief Judge Caren Fox Presiding officerHeoi anō, tēnei te mihi,nā te Rōpū Whakamana i te tiriti o Waitangi



xxi

ABBRevIAtIons

AJHR Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representativesapp appendixCA Court of Appealch chapterCNI central north Islandcomp compilerCYFS Child, Youth, and Family servicesDMC District Māori Councildoc documented edition, editorETITO electrotechnology and telecommunications Industry training organisationfol folioICERD International Convention on the elimination of All Forms of Racial DiscriminationIT information technologyltd limitedMCDA Maori Community Development Act 1962MMP mixed-member proportionalMSEAA Maori social and economic Advancement Act 1945MWEO Māori War effort organisationMWP Māori Wardens ProjectMWWAC Māori Wardens Warranting Administration Committeen noteno numberNUMA national Urban Māori AuthoritynZLR New Zealand Law ReportsNZMC new Zealand Māori CouncilNZMWA new Zealand Māori Wardens AssociationnZPD New Zealand Parliamentary Debatesp, pp page, pagespara paragraphpt partROI record of inquirys, ss section, sections (of an Act of Parliament)SC supreme Courtsec section (of this report, a book, etc)SOE state-owned enterpriseTAG training Advisory Groupte TAI te tira Ahu IwiTPK te Puni KōkiriUNDRIP United nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People



xxii

v and (in legal case names)vol volumeWai Waitangi tribunal claimWINZ Work and Income new ZealandWIR West Indian Law Reports

Unless otherwise stated, endnote references to claims, documents, memoranda, papers, and transcripts are to the Wai 2417 record of inquiry, a select copy of which is reproduced in appendix VII . A full copy is available on request from the Waitangi tribunal .



1

CHAPteR 1

Te Wero / The Challenge

Introduction to this Urgent Inquiry into the Māori Community Development Act Claim

1.1 IntroductionThis report is the result of an urgent inquiry into a claim about the Crown’s review of the Māori Community Development Act 1962, and its administration of the Māori Wardens Project (MWP), launched in 2007 . The 1962 Act gave statutory recognition and pow-ers to Māori self-government institutions : local Māori Committees and regional Māori executive Committees, District Māori Councils (DMCs), and – at the top of the structure – the new Zealand Māori Council (NZMC), a national body comprising delegates from DMCs . since 1969, DMCs have had exclusive powers to administer and control the Māori Wardens, voluntary community workers who have existed in some form since the nine-teenth century .

In 2009, the Minister of Māori Affairs initiated a comprehensive review of the 1962 Act, including into the current statutory arrangements for Māori Wardens . Among the options canvassed in the review was the disestablishment of the NZMC structure and the transfer of authority over wardens to a new governing body . two years earlier, the Ministry of Māori Development te Puni Kōkiri (TPK) launched its MWP, a scheme intended to pro-vide training and funding to support the voluntary work of the Māori Wardens . The MWP was run out of TPK and was intended as an interim measure only . once the question of the future governance arrangements for the Māori Wardens had been resolved, TPK envisaged control over the scheme would be handed over to Māori . today,1 seven years after the MWP’s establishment, this transfer has not yet occurred, and responsibility for the project remains with TPK . This was of great concern to the claimants in our inquiry .

on 27 september 2013, representatives of the NZMC and several DMCs filed the Wai 2417 claim with the Waitangi tribunal . In this claim, they challenged the Crown’s right to conduct a review of the 1962 Act, and alleged that its administration of the MWP was undermining the Māori self-government institutions protected by the 1962 Act . They lodged their claim on behalf of themselves as well as ‘Māori generally’ .2

The essence of the claimants’ position in this inquiry is that the 1962 Act represented an historic self-government compact between Māori and the Crown . In passing the Act, the claimants believe, the Crown granted official recognition to the ongoing search of the Māori people for tino rangatiratanga or self-determination, and the right of Māori to govern themselves through their own chosen institutions . The 1962 Act, the claimants maintain, was ‘no ordinary statute’, but has ‘constitutional status’ as a ‘rangatiratanga/



Whaia te Mana Motuhake / In Pur suit of Mana Motuhake

2

self-government “agreement” between Māori and the Crown’ .3 According to the claimants, Māori Wardens, under the exclusive control and supervision of DMCs since 1969, form an integral part of the self-government compact that, in their view, the 1962 Act represents .4 This special status of the 1962 statute, the claimants contend, has implications for how any reform of the 1962 legisla-tion should be conducted . The claimants believe that as ‘Māori institutions’, given statutory recognition under the 1962 Act, any review of the Māori Council and the Māori Wardens must be Māori-led . More specifically, it is the claimants’ view that any review of the 1962 legisla-tion must be conducted by the NZMC .5 Anything less than a Māori-led process headed by the Council, the claimants state, would amount to a breach of the 1962 Act compact and thus an infringement of treaty principles and of the United nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) . In addition, the claimants believe that any Crown actions that sever or otherwise diminish the relationship of the Māori Wardens to the NZMC would also amount to a breach of the 1962 Act agreement, and, by extension, the treaty principles and the UNDRIP .

By contrast, the Crown stresses that its latest proposals are forward-looking . Rather than debating the origins and intent of the 1962 Act or the conduct of the review to date, the Government states that its focus is on assessing how the provisions of the Act relating to Māori Wardens might be updated to better fit the changing needs of Māori communities in the early twenty-first century . TPK denies accusations that it entered into consultations on the 1962 Act with a fixed agenda or predetermined view as to their outcome . Rather, it argues, its objective has simply been to seek out the views of as wide a range of Māori as possible . The Crown conceded, in the course of our inquiry, that the NZMC and the Māori Wardens are ‘Māori institutions’ and that any review of the 1962 Act should be Māori-led .6 However, the Crown maintains that it would be inappro-priate for the NZMC alone to lead a review of its own Act . This is largely because of changes in what the Crown terms the ‘landscape of Māori representation’ since the NZMC’s establishment in the 1960s, and because TPK believes that Māori Wardens should have equal status and involvement

in any review of the Act as it relates to them . According to the Crown, the shifting terrain of Māori representation, particularly with the rise of iwi representative groups over the past few decades, means that a broader range of Māori organisations than just the NZMC ‘have a stake’ in leading any future reform of the 1962 Act .7 The questions of who should lead the ongoing review of the 1962 Act, as well as whether the Crown’s ongoing administration of the MWP amounts to breaches of treaty principles and the UNDRIP, form the crux of the differences between the parties in this inquiry .

1.2 The Parties in this InquiryThe claimants are all members of the NZMC or DMCs, or both . Cletus Maanu Paul is one of the co-chairs of the NZMC and is also the chair of the Mataatua DMC . sir edward taihakurei Durie is the other co-chair of the NZMC and also the chair of the Raukawa DMC . Desma Kemp Ratima is the chair of the NZMC’s Māori Wardens committee . Anthony toro Bidois is the chair of the te Arawa DMC .

The lead agency for the Crown in this inquiry is TPK – the Ministry of Māori Development . TPK was established in January 1992 under the Ministry of Māori Development Act 1991 . Under the Act, TPK is given statutory responsi-bility for promoting increases in Māori achievement in the areas of education, training, employment, health, and economic development, as well as monitoring the perfor-mance of other Government agencies in these areas .8

The emergence of interested parties in the lead-up to hearings is described in section 1 .6 .6 .

1.3 Essential Background InformationAt its core, the Wai 2417 claim is about the long struggle for mana motuhake, Māori self-determination and auton-omy . In the treaty of Waitangi, as we shall discuss in chap-ter 2, the Crown promised to recognise and protect te tino rangatiratanga, Māori authority over their own affairs . ever since 6 February 1840, when Māori promised for their part to recognise the Crown’s authority, tribal leaders

1.2Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz


Te Wero / The Challenge

3

have sought ways and means to assert their tino rangatira-tanga and obtain legal recognition of it from the Crown . In the nineteenth century, they took British institutions such as committees and councils and turned them into Māori self-government institutions, combining Māori values and tikanga with Pākehā powers and procedures to create uniquely Māori institutions . The establishment of a Māori King in the 1850s, and of a Māori Parliament in the 1890s, were major events in the pursuit of mana motuhake on the national stage . Colonial Governments were often hostile and made few concessions in respect of according legal recognition and statutory powers to these Māori self-government institutions .

High points in this history included the Māori Councils Act of 1900 and the Māori social and economic Advancement Act of 1945, where the Crown agreed to recognise Māori institutions – but only at the local level . The Māori social and economic Advancement Act 1945 provided statutory authority to a network of tribal Committees and tribal executives set up by Māori dur-ing the second World War to assist with the war effort . During the 1950s, Māori leaders organised their own dis-trict councils and made representations to Government to give statutory recognition to these councils and to a Dominion Māori Council . In 1961, the Government reached a formal agreement with Māori leaders to estab-lish a Dominion or new Zealand Māori Council, which was given effect by the Māori social and economic Advancement Amendment Act of that year . These statu-tory powers were provided for a second time in the Māori Welfare Act 1962, after the Government decided that it was timely to overhaul and modernise the 1945 Act .

The 1962 Act retained the existing tribal Committees and tribal executive Committees, renaming them Māori Committees and Māori executive Committees, as well as affording statutory powers to DMCs and to a NZMC . Under the 1962 Act, the NZMC and its constituent bodies received broad powers, including to ‘consider and discuss such matters as appear relevant to the social and economic advancement of the Māori race’, to ‘make such representa-tions to the Minister or other person or authority as seem to it advantageous to the Māori race’, and to ‘apply and

maintain the maximum possible efficiency and responsi-bility in their local self-government’ .9 The Māori Welfare Act was renamed the Māori Community Development Act in 1979 .10

Under the 1962 Act, the Māori Committees also received exclusive powers to control and supervise the Māori Wardens or wātene Māori, community volunteers who can trace their origins back to the nineteenth cen-tury . Māori Wardens first gained statutory powers under the 1945 Act, under which they were empowered to con-trol ‘unruly’ or ‘riotous’ behaviour by any Māori person, to request that the owner of any licensed establishment cease selling alcohol to any Māori individual whom the Māori Warden judged was ‘intoxicated’ or ‘likely to become so’, and to enter any ‘gathering of Māoris’ and search for and seize any ‘intoxicating liquor’ . These statutory powers of Māori Wardens were transferred to the 1962 Act with only minor amendments .11 In 1969, the exclusive power to con-trol and supervise Māori Wardens, and to assign duties to wardens consistent with the 1962 Act, was given to the DMCs .12

today, Māori Wardens carry out a wide range of community and welfare functions . These include school truancy patrols, supporting young offenders at court appearances, providing advocacy for Māori whānau dealing with Government agencies such as Work and Income new Zealand, patrolling the streets at night, and providing security assistance at large public events such as Waitangi Day and the Rugby World Cup . Māori Wardens’ ability to respond to community needs has recently been demonstrated in the aftermath of natu-ral and human disasters such as the Christchurch earth-quakes of 2010 and 2011 and the wrecking of the MV Rena off the tauranga coast .

While statutory authority over the Māori Wardens has remained with the DMCs since 1969, since the 1950s and 1960s Māori Wardens have also formed their own local and district wardens’ associations . In 1966, a new Zealand Māori Wardens Association (NZMWA) was established under the auspices of the NZMC to provide support and assistance to Māori Wardens . The NZMWA ceased to exist as a national organisation during the mid-1970s, but was

1.3Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz


Whaia te Mana Motuhake / In Pur suit of Mana Motuhake

4

re-established as a national body in 1979 and remains in existence today . Māori Wardens affiliated with the Association attended our hearings and a number made submissions as interested parties .

Māori Wardens have always been, and remain, unpaid volunteers who have carried out their valuable commu-nity work on minimal resources . In 2005, Winston Peters reached a confidence and supply agreement with the Labour Government, which included creating a dedicated fund to support the voluntary work of Māori Wardens in their communities . During 2007, TPK and the Police established the MWP to provide a temporary structure to administer funding and training for wardens . At the time of the MWP’s establishment, Ministers and officials felt that such an interim structure was necessary due to their concerns at the apparent dysfunction and lack of financial accountability within some DMCs . Thus the decision was made that TPK would administer the funds as an interim

measure, with the aim of handing control back to a Māori organisation once the Crown’s planned review of the gov-ernance arrangements for Māori Wardens had identified a suitable body to receive the funding .

At the same time as it launched the MWP as a tem-porary measure to administer funding and support for wardens, TPK formed a Māori Wardens Advisory Group comprising members of the NZMC, NZMWA, and other Māori community organisations . The aims of the group were to give input on future governance options for the project (and for Māori Wardens more generally), as well as to provide a means for Mā

Date post:	23-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	9 times
Download:	0 times

Whaia te Mana Motuhake / In Pursuit of Mana Motuhake: Report … · 2018-02-25 · Whaia te mana...

Documents