1  Māori—tangata whenua (people of the land)—had lived in Aotearoa (New Zealand) for many centuries prior to the arrival of Europeans (Anderson et al, 2014). In February 1840, after many decades of contact through trade and settlement and amidst increasing tensions, Māori and the British signed the Treaty of Cession between Great Britain and New Zealand (‘Treaty of Waitangi’ or ‘Treaty’) at Waitangi in the Bay of Islands. The Treaty of Waitangi recognized and protected Māori rights, and established the British right to govern the new colony. Despite its guarantees, the settler government breached the Treaty of Waitangi’s provisions through actions and inactions after 1840. Māori maintained demands that the Treaty should be honoured. In 1975, at the height of Māori treaty protests, the government established the Waitangi Tribunal (‘Tribunal’) under the Treaty of Waitangi Act adopted in 1975, as an independent commission of inquiry. The Tribunal has the exclusive jurisdiction to inquire into Māori claims that the government (the Crown) has breached the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi which was signed between Māori and the Crown in 1840 (Indigenous Peoples, Treaties with) and to make recommendations to the Crown for the redress of Māori grievances. Although it has the authority to make binding recommendations, the Tribunal has, in all but one case to date, made recommendations which are not binding on the Crown. The Tribunal’s jurisdiction and procedure have evolved significantly through time in response to legislative change and political pressure. Today, the Tribunal is an important part of a far-reaching Treaty settlement process which seeks to redress Māori Treaty grievances, mainly through legislated agreements.

2  British officials drafted the Treaty of Waitangi in February 1840, and British missionaries translated the Treaty into te reo Māori (the Māori language). Both Treaty texts succinctly describe an exchange of rights and obligations between the two sovereign nations. The English version of the Treaty, however, describes these rights in significantly different ways from the Māori language version which was debated and signed by the vast majority of Māori rangatira (chiefs). It is unclear whether this mistranslation was a deliberate strategy to encourage Māori to sign, or an unfortunate result of the inexperience of the translators and the haste of the translation at Waitangi on the eve of the signing. Regardless, the two versions of the Treaty of Waitangi can be summarized as follows.

3  In the first article of the English language Treaty, Māori ‘cede to Her Majesty the Queen of England absolutely and without reservation all the rights and powers of Sovereignty’. In the Māori language Treaty, however, (translated back into English) the chiefs ‘give absolutely to the Queen of England for ever the complete government over their land’. In the second article in English, Her Majesty guarantees to Māori ‘the full exclusive and undisturbed possession of their Lands and Estates[,] Forests[,] Fisheries[,] and other properties … so long as it is their wish and desire to retain the same in their possession’. The Maori translation, however, says: ‘[t]he Queen of England agrees to protect the chiefs, the subtribes and all the people of New Zealand in the unqualified exercise of their chieftainship over their lands, villages and all their treasures’. The third article of the Treaty, in both English and Māori, extends to Māori all the ‘Rights and Privileges of British Subjects’.

4  The Treaty of Waitangi is generally recognized today as an international treaty, but it was never ratified into domestic law, although it has been described as forming an internal standard for legal investigations (Boast, 2016, 339). Despite the Treaty of Waitangi’s guarantees to Māori for ‘unqualified chieftainship over their lands’, Māori rapidly lost control of their land after 1840 through Crown (settler government) actions and inactions, such as land confiscations, dubious land sales, the individualization of land title (which Māori had traditionally held communally) (Aboriginal Title), and other mechanisms. By the early twentieth century, Māori had lost control over most of their lands and resources (Ward, 1999). The socioeconomic costs of this loss were soon apparent. Māori migrated in large numbers into cities, and became over-represented in statistics relating to poor health, low educational achievement, sub-standard housing, and unemployment. Throughout this process, Māori maintained calls on the government to honour its Treaty obligations (Walker, 2004).

5  In the late 1960s and early 1970s, a series of events converged to draw national attention to the guarantees the Crown had made to Māori in the Treaty, and to confront the government with questions about race relations in New Zealand (Hamer, 2004, 3). Māori protests, marches, and occupations heaped pressure on the government to address the loss of Māori land and to honour the guarantees made to Māori in the Treaty. Inside Parliament, a Māori member of Parliament, Matiu Rata, proposed a Bill to establish a commission of inquiry to address Māori demands. His proposal found favour with a government unaware of the full extent of Māori grievance and anxious to take the heat out of Māori protest (Hamer, 2004, 5–6). The Treaty of Waitangi Bill became law in October 1975.

6  The Treaty of Waitangi Act established the Tribunal’s statutory duty to hear claims pertaining to issues arising from Crown actions and inactions since 1975. The Tribunal sat for its first inquiry in 1977, originally with only three Tribunal members. It issued its first report in 1978. By 1980, the Tribunal had heard and reported on four claims concerning environmental, planning, and development issues relating to Maori customary interests (Waitangi Tribunal, 2017, 4–5) (Environment and Indigenous Peoples). Following the appointment of Chief Judge Edward Taihakurei Durie as chairperson in 1980, the Tribunal released a series of reports which significantly impacted on government policy and public debate (Waitangi Tribunal, 2017, 4–5). By 1985, however, only 14 claims had been registered because the Tribunal’s jurisdiction was limited to contemporary matters and excluded historic grievances.

7  Following increasing pressure from Māori for the Crown to extend the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, the Treaty of Waitangi Act was amended in 1985 to grant the Tribunal retrospective powers to hear claims about Treaty grievances dating back to 6 February 1840. This was a watershed development in the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, indeed in New Zealand history, and Māori began to submit large numbers of historical (and also contemporary) claims. In 1987 the Tribunal issued its first report under its expanded jurisdiction, thereby boosting claimants’ confidence in its efficacy. By 2000, almost 850 claims had been registered and in 2002 the Tribunal registered its 1,000th claim.

8  As the number of claims before the Tribunal expanded, the government legislated to increase the number of Tribunal members. In 1988 the membership was extended to 16 and since 2008, up to 20 Tribunal members at one time have been appointed usually on three-year renewable warrants. Tribunal membership includes approximately equal numbers of Māori and non-Māori, men and women, appointed by the governor-general. Tribunal members bring a broad variety of expertise as historians, academics, former public servants, prominent Māori leaders, and business people. The chairperson appoints a presiding officer and between three and seven Tribunal members to each inquiry panel. A number of Tribunal panels operate simultaneously (Waitangi Tribunal, 2017, 4). Although Tribunal findings can create public debate and controversy, the membership of the Tribunal and the appointment of new members attracts little public or media attention.

9  Also in 1988, and following court action, an amendment to the Treaty of Waitangi Act (secs 8A–8I) provided the Tribunal with limited powers to make binding recommendations. Where the Tribunal finds a claim to be well-founded it may require some categories of land (state-owned enterprise and state forests land) to be returned to Māori with provision for compensation. The Act specifies an interim period of 90 days before such binding recommendations become applicable, during which time the claimants and the Crown can negotiate an alternative agreed settlement. If no settlement is reached during that time, the Tribunal’s interim recommendation becomes binding on the Crown (Waitangi Tribunal, 2012b, 10). Ten years after this amendment, the Tribunal issued its first and so far only binding recommendation. In that case, a settlement between claimants and the Crown was achieved within the 90-day interim period and the binding recommendation did not take effect. Overall, the Tribunal has been reluctant to use these limited binding powers, preferring instead to encourage settlement agreements. As a creature of statute, the Tribunal treads a fine line between fulfilling its statutory function and not antagonizing government, which could legislate to remove its capacity to make binding recommendations.

10  In the early 1990s, the Tribunal released a report recommending that the Crown should acquire land from five landowners (farmers) for the purposes of redressing Māori claims. A public backlash against the return of private land to Māori claimants led to a further amendment to the Treaty of Waitangi Act in 1992 removing the capacity for the Tribunal to determine ownership rights between claimants and private landowners. The Tribunal does, however, still have the authority to inquire into claims relating to private land (Melvin, 2004, 23).

11  Amidst mounting political pressure for the government to signal an end to the Treaty settlement process, in 2006 a very significant amendment to the Treaty of Waitangi Act (sec 6AA) once again limited the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. After 1 September 2008, no Māori would be able to submit a historical claim to the Tribunal. For the purposes of the legislation, historical claims are defined as acts or omissions by the Crown before 21 September 1992. An unprecedented 1800 new claims were lodged after August 2005 and prior to the 2008 deadline; this was more claims than the Tribunal had previously received in its history. This influx brought new challenges for the Tribunal in developing processes to determine which of those claims would be accepted (see the memos on 7 June 2016 and 22 September 2015) and how to reach finality with all historical claims, as discussed below (Waitangi Tribunal, 2014a, 8).

12  According to the Treaty of Waitangi Act, the purpose of the Tribunal, as set out in the preamble, is: ‘to make recommendations on claims relating to the practical application of the principles of the Treaty and, for that purpose, to determine its meaning and effect and whether certain matters are inconsistent with those principles’. The Waitangi Tribunal’s function has evolved significantly since its establishment. Despite this, the fundamental principle underpinning the Tribunal’s function has prevailed; that is, to hold the Crown to account for Treaty breaches and to recommend remedies to re-establish Crown–Māori relations. The Tribunal’s function is unique in New Zealand and has no close parallel anywhere else in the world. It is required by legislation to act as a commission of inquiry (as governed by the Commissions of Inquiry Act of 1908) with the exclusive authority to determine the meaning of, and give effect to, the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, taking into account the two different texts of the Treaty (Waitangi Tribunal, 2012b, 1). As stated in section 5 (2) Treaty of Waitangi:

13  Since its establishment, the Waitangi Tribunal has provided an independent, impartial, public forum for Māori to bring claims against Crown policies, acts, and omissions which Māori allege have contravened the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (Waitangi Tribunal, 2017, 4). The Tribunal’s ultimate task is to determine whether such claims are ‘well-founded’. This comprises two elements: first, that the grievance is, or is likely to, prejudicially affect the claimants; and second, that it is inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (Melvin, 2004, 23–24).

14  The Tribunal does not settle Treaty grievances. Rather, the Tribunal provides independent examination of alleged grievances and offers informed advice by way of recommendations to the Crown to redress those grievances (Melvin, 2004, 16). With its unique function, the Tribunal has the authority to look into matters which are beyond the jurisdiction of ordinary courts (Melvin, 2004, 20). The Tribunal has always been led by a chairperson who is either the chief judge of the Māori Land Court or a judge or retired judge of the High Court. Its membership (originally three, but expanded over time, as discussed above) has been selected for knowledge in their fields.

15  The Tribunal’s proceedings are by way of inquiry and report. Under section 6 Treaty of Waitangi Act, the Tribunal has the authority to consider claims by any individual or group of Māori who claims they are, or are likely to be, prejudicially affected by, amongst other things, ordinances, regulations, policies, actions, and inaction by the Crown, or on behalf of the Crown. For the purposes of the Act, ‘Maori’ is defined as ‘a person of the Maori race of New Zealand; and includes all descendants of such a person’. This broad definition has meant that the Tribunal has received multiple claims from groups and individuals relating to the same issue or region (Melvin, 2004, 17). Also in relation to its broad function, the phrase ‘by or on behalf of the Crown’ has demanded considerable Tribunal attention in clarifying the identity of ‘the Crown’ in relation to Māori claims (Melvin, 2004, 21).

16  The Treaty of Waitangi Act lists six functions for the Tribunal (sec 5 (1)). In reality, the Tribunal spends all but a fraction of its time on the first function to inquire into and make recommendations on claims submitted to it by Māori (sec 5 (1) (a)). The remaining five functions relate to the Tribunal’s capacity to make binding recommendations, which it has done on only one occasion (at time of writing). The volume of claims it has received, and the issue of mandate that come with those claims, have arguably been the Tribunal’s greatest procedural challenge. The Tribunal must inquire into every claim submitted which is within its jurisdiction. But it has the legal authority to refuse to inquire into claims if, for example, it feels the claimants has alternatives that might reasonably be pursued or if it considers the claim frivolous or vexatious (Melvin, 2004, 20).

17  The Tribunal hearings process for inquiries has evolved considerably (as discussed below) although some principles and practises have been maintained. Perhaps most significantly, hearings are mostly held in public and are attended by claimants and the Crown (Waitangi Tribunal, 2005, 21):

A Tribunal hearing is a forum not only for arguments and stories, but also for emotions. It is well recognised that Tribunal hearings can provide an important catharsis for claimants, and this is a critical part of the Treaty claims resolution process.

As an independent commission of inquiry, the Tribunal is empowered to hear witnesses and receive evidence to assist in the investigation of claims brought before it. This includes reports prepared by expert witnesses. The Tribunal has the statutory authority to commission research as formal evidence (Waitangi Tribunal, 2017, 10). It can summon witnesses and require the production of documents and other records for examination (Waitangi Tribunal, 2012b, 12–13). It maintains a record for each inquiry to show the essential papers relating to the conduct of the inquiry and the information it has before it (Waitangi Tribunal, 2012b, 20).

18  The Tribunal follows the rules of natural justice to ensure all parties receive a fair hearing. It endeavours to hear evidence in venues suitable for the parties involved, including hearing claimants on their marae (traditional meeting place), and generally follows the appropriate protocol of that group. Evidence may be given in Māori or English. Oral evidence presented in Māori is simultaneously translated. The Māori claimant case is usually presented first at the hearing. This takes the form of a combination of oral briefs of evidence from claimants and kaumatua (Māori elders), and tribal experts. The case will also usually rely on written evidence provided by expert witnesses including specialist researchers. Claimants are generally represented by legal counsel who may be funded by legal aid (Waitangi Tribunal, 2012b, 13). The evidence relied on can be subject to questioning by Tribunal members and cross-examination. By convention, however, kaumatua who give evidence of their direct knowledge are not extensively cross-examined; rather, the Tribunal encourages the presentation of evidence from an alternative historical source. ‘However, the right of direct cross-examination remains, and all witnesses are to be forewarned that they are liable to cross-examination if they elect to give evidence’ (Waitangi Tribunal, 2012b, 22–34). The Crown, represented by Crown Law, also presents its own case, supported by a variety of evidence including expert witness evidence, all of which can be cross examined. There are also processes for interested party participation.

19  Having completed hearings, the Tribunal is required to provide a report on its inquiry and findings, and to make recommendations to the Crown, including any findings of the Crown’s Treaty breaches. Where it determines that a claim is well-founded, it can make recommendations to the Crown to compensate for and remove the prejudice, and prevent others being affected by the prejudice in future (Waitangi Tribunal, 2012b, 2). Originally, and still in most cases today, the Tribunal only has powers to make non-binding recommendations to the Crown. Most often these recommendations have formed the basis of the settlement of claims through negotiations between claimants and the Crown. The Tribunal is not involved directly in those negotiations (Waitangi Tribunal, 2012b, 9) and it is difficult to quantify or summarize the extent to which the Tribunal’s recommendations are realised in the final settlements. Claimants may choose to enter negotiations with the Crown at any stage in the Tribunal inquiry and reporting process, and can agree to forgo a Tribunal inquiry and go directly to negotiations with the Crown. The majority of Māori claimants have chosen to engage with the Tribunal’s hearing and reporting as their preferred pathway to settlement with the Crown.

20  Treaty settlement is a process of negotiation between claimants and the Crown which is ultimately realised by way of an Act of Parliament. Settlements the Crown negotiates with Māori are ‘full and final’; the settlement Acts remove the relevant claims from the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, thereby ensuring that the claims cannot be re-litigated before the Tribunal or other courts and tribunals (Melvin, 2004, 20).

21  The Treaty of Waitangi Act specifies the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, as discussed above, and it provides the Tribunal chairperson with significant freedom (Schedule 2, sec 5 (9)–(10)) for determining the Tribunal’s practice and procedure in carrying out its statutory functions:

Tribunal chairpersons have used this wide discretion to great effect over time to develop ways of working to suit the demands of circumstances (Waitangi Tribunal, 2012b, 1). Indeed, the Tribunal’s achievements are due in large part to the capacity of the chairperson to adapt and develop Tribunal procedure to respond to the political circumstances of the time.

22  As noted above, the number of claims lodged with the Tribunal increased considerably with the change in jurisdiction in 1985. It became clear that the Tribunal could not continue to hear claims one by one. From 1996, the Tribunal began to group historical claims into districts; claims were organized into an initial 36 geographical districts (with some later amendment) encompassing all of New Zealand. The map below (Figure 1) indicates these districts and the progress made in the inquiries by June 2018.

• View full-sized figure

Figure 1: Progress in Tribunal District Inquiries (as at June 2018)

Credit: Map courtesy of the Waitangi Tribunal Unit, Wellington.

23  At the same time, the Tribunal commissioned a series of research reports for each district, published as the Rangahaua Whanui series, which identified the main historical issues for each district. In 1997, the Tribunal released a three-volume national overview report which highlighted major trends and patterns of historical grievance, particularly relating to historical land alienation (Ward, 1997). This overview signalled to the Crown that its Treaty responsibility in redressing Māori claims was far more extensive than the Crown was aware at the time; no area in the country could be considered ‘claim free’.

24  The Tribunal also innovated an improvement in the organization of the vast volumes of evidence produced for major historical inquires, with the adoption of the evidential inquiry casebook (Waitangi Tribunal, 1997). Prior to the casebook method, hearings would stop when required research was identified and would proceed again once it was complete. The casebook method provided that the evidence used as the basis for hearing historical district inquiries would be largely produced before hearings began, and assembled into a ‘casebook’ (Waitangi Tribunal, 1997). It was hoped the casebook method would produce further efficiency in reducing the number of years typically required for a large inquiry district. Since this early innovation, the Tribunal has tried a number of other ways to inquire and report on historical district inquiries in a comprehensive and timely manner. Such innovations include oral hearings, the adoption of a ‘statement of issues’ early in the inquiry to define the claim by the time of hearing, early reporting where a full inquiry and report can be avoided, prepublication reports, and staged reports which are issued in parts. Where these innovations have proven effective they have been taken up in subsequent inquiries also.

25  In setting priorities for the completion of district historical inquiries, the Tribunal recognized that other types of claim would have a long wait to be heard. These included what became known as the national theme or ‘kaupapa’ inquiries that did not fit easily into the district structure. Kaupapa claims have been grouped into eleven inquiry themes, including, amongst other things, Māori military veterans, health services, constitutional issues, education services, social services, social development, housing, economic development, and the justice system (Waitangi Tribunal, 2012a). The Tribunal has also developed ways to address historical claims that have fallen outside the earlier period of district reporting, known as ‘Arotake Kereme’.

26  Some types of claim also had an urgent aspect, such as those relating to pending legislation, including for settlements that removed further Tribunal jurisdiction to inquire, and government policy initiatives where it was claimed that urgent action was required if prejudice was to be avoided. In those cases, the Tribunal accepted that requiring claimants to wait could result in irreversible prejudice and they should have the opportunity to seek an urgent hearing (Waitangi Tribunal, 2012b). However, as hearing urgent claims would take resources and time from the agreed priority for inquiries, the Tribunal established strict criteria for granting a claim ‘urgency’ (Waitangi Tribunal, 2012b, 4). The criteria require claimants to demonstrate ‘that they are suffering, or are likely to suffer, significant and irreversible prejudice as a result of current or pending Crown actions or policies; there is no alternative remedy that would be reasonable for the claimants to use; and the claimants are ready to proceed urgently to a hearing’ (Waitangi Tribunal, 2012b, 7). Urgent hearings can include requests for remedies where the Tribunal has found a claim well-founded and the claimants can show that the remedy they seek might be at risk from imminent Crown action, such as a settlement to other groups (Waitangi Tribunal, 2012b, 5). In 2000, the Tribunal heard its first ‘urgent inquiry’. Previously, the Tribunal has preferred to defer decisions on recommendations for remedies to encourage settlement agreements, but recent successful court challenges from claimants have required a reconsideration of that approach (Waitangi Tribunal, 2015, 2).

27  Once the Tribunal has completed its district inquiry process, it will have heard and reported on 91 per cent of New Zealand’s land mass, with claims relating to the remaining nine per cent being handled through direct negotiations (Waitangi Tribunal, 2016, 5). In 2015, the Tribunal set a goal to complete historical (pre-1992) claims by 2020 and to then transition into the completion of all other outstanding claims by 2025, including the kaupapa claims (explained above). The process for these inquiries is likely in part to resemble the process for district inquiries and the innovations developed there. The Māori Veterans inquiry, for example, began with oral hearings in order to provide an opportunity for veterans who had waited a long time to speak directly to the Tribunal about their experiences. The kaupapa inquiries, which may have significant historical components, are likely to trigger further innovations in Tribunal procedure in response to the needs of claimants and inquiry circumstances. The recommendations the Tribunal makes for these claims, and the Crown’s approaches to redress, are also likely to evolve (Waitangi Tribunal, 2015, 4). Looking to the future, the Tribunal is likely to focus more on contemporary claims concerning matters of recent government policy and legislation, such as freshwater issues, as well as matters arising from agreed Treaty settlements.

28  The Tribunal has played an essential role in New Zealand’s unique approach to addressing the country’s colonial past (Colonialism) and preparing the Crown and Māori for negotiations to redress New Zealand’s indigenous people (Indigenous Peoples) for historic grievances. Its work has been subject to some criticism. Byrnes, for example, has warned that ‘the truth the tribunal publishes in its published reports is not absolute, but is highly conditioned and constructed by the immediate social and political context’ (1998, at 20). Despite this, the Tribunal’s reports have placed Crown injustice against Māori on the public record, and laid bare events in New Zealand history which have begun to reshape the nation’s identity. The Tribunal’s success in achieving its statutory requirements and contributing to positive developments in Crown/Māori relations can be attributed to its broad jurisdiction and its capacity to innovate and evolve as circumstances have demanded it.

29  I would like to thank Cathy Marr, Senior Historian at the Waitangi Tribunal, for her valuable contribution in reviewing a draft of this work.

Cited Bibliography

• Waitangi Tribunal, ‘Te Manutukutuku’ Issue 41 (Wellington June/July 1997).

• GM Byrnes, ‘Jackals of the Crown? Historians and the Treaty Claims Process in New Zealand’ (1998) 20(2) The Public Historian 9–23.

• A Ward, An Unsettled History: Treaty Claims in New Zealand Today (Bridget Williams Books Wellington 1999).

• P Hamer, ‘A Quarter Century of the Waitangi Tribunal’ in J Hayward and N Wheen (eds), The Waitangi Tribunal: He Roopu Whakamana i te Tiriti o Waitangi (Bridget Williams Books Wellington 2004) 3–14.

• G Melvin, ‘The Jurisdiction of the Waitangi Tribunal’ in J Hayward and N Wheen (eds), The Waitangi Tribunal: He Roopu Whakamana i te Tiriti o Waitangi (Bridget Williams Books Wellington 2004) 15–28.

• R Walker, Ka Whawhai Tonu Matou: Struggle Without End (Penguin Auckland 2004).

• Waitangi Tribunal, ‘The new approach revisited: a discussion paper on the Waitangi Tribunal’s current and developing practices’ (Wellington 2005).

• Waitangi Tribunal, ‘Te Manutukutuku’ Issue 64 (Wellington, May 2012a).

• Waitangi Tribunal, ‘Guide to the Practice and Procedure of the Waitangi Tribunal’ (Wellington 2012b).

• Waitangi Tribunal, ‘Te Manutukutuku’ Issue 66 (Wellington, March 2014a).

• Waitangi Tribunal, ‘Strategic Direction 2015–2025’ (Wellington 2014b).

• A Anderson, J Binney, and A Harris, Tangata Whenua: An Illustrated History (Bridget Williams Books Wellington 2014).

• Waitangi Tribunal, ‘Te Manutukutuku’ Issue 68 (Wellington, June 2015).

• Waitangi Tribunal, ‘Te Manutukutuku’ Issue 69 (Wellington, January 2016).

• RP Boast, ‘The Waitangi Tribunal in the Context of New Zealand's Political Culture and Historiography’ (2016) 18 Journal of the History of International Law 339–61.

• Waitangi Tribunal, ‘Waitangi Tribunal Bibliography: Tribunal Reports, Publications and Research Reports Presented in Evidence 1975–2016. Part 1: Waitangi Tribunal Reports, Statements and Publications’ (Wellington 2017).

Further Bibliography

• J Castellino, ‘Waitangi Tribunal (New Zealand)’ in L Stan & N Nedelsky (eds), The Encyclopedia of Transitional Justice (CUP Cambridge 2013) 479–92.

• Waitangi Tribunal, ‘Memorandum of the Chairperson Concerning the Kaupapa Inquiry Programme’ (1 April 2015).

• Waitangi Tribunal, ‘Memorandum of the Chairperson Concerning Remaining Historical Claims’ (22 September 2015).

• Waitangi Tribunal, ‘Memorandum of the Chairperson Concerning Remaining Historical Claims’ (7 June 2016).

Cited Documents

• Treaty of Cession between Great Britain and New Zealand (signed 5/6 February 1840) 89 CTS 473 (Treaty of Waitangi).

• Treaty of Waitangi Act, No 114 of 1975 (10 October 1975, as amended to 1 April 1995).

• Treaty of Waitangi Amendment Act, No 77 of 2006 (12 December 2006).

• Treaty of Waitangi (State Enterprises) Act 1988, No 105 of 1988 (30 June 1988).