tapu, known and valued by claimants today. One possible way forward would be for working groups of tangata whenua, Crown officials, and local authorities, formed under the Resource Management Act, to locate those living wahi tapu most in need of protection.

Es.10 Rating of Maori Land

The Crown has acknowledged that the burden of local body rates might not always have been applied equitably in Hauraki. Our report discusses particular cases. We also note that the titles created under the Native Land Acts, and the partitioning of land into uneconomic parcels, made it difficult for Maori to meet rating obligations. Provided that the Crown acknowledges this, and the considerable contributions in land which Maori have made, both voluntarily and compulsorily, for local and national infrastructure, we see no problem in Treaty terms with the concept of rating Maori land. We note that, although current legislation allows for negotiation and adjustment of the rating burden, earlier generations lost land to compulsory charging orders and find that the Crown should take this into account in negotiating the quantum of settlement for Hauraki claims.

ES.11 The Foreshore and Seabed

Many claimant groups raised with us the issue of proprietary rights over the foreshore and seabed, or at least rights of rangatiratanga and kaitiakitanga. The ‘ownership’ issue has taken on particular prominence since the Court of Appeal decision in the Ngati Apa case, and the subsequent legislation, both of which occurred after the Hauraki Tribunal completed its hearings. We are of the view that the issue has been addressed by another Tribunal in the 2004 Report on the Crown’s Foreshore and Seabed Policy and is now a matter for the courts rather than for this Tribunal.

We do, however, note that in purchasing Maori interests in the Thames foreshore the Crown denied Thames Maori the opportunity or right to lease the foreshore for the purpose of mining, which contemporary evidence shows to have been their preference. Furthermore, following Fenton’s judgment in the Kauaeranga case (1870), and faced by the prospect of the Native Land Court recognising Maori interests in other Hauraki foreshores, the Crown shut down the jurisdiction of the court to inquire into such claims, and further strengthened its control via the Harbours Act 1878. We consider this to have been prejudicial to Maori, though we are not in a position to determine the extent of the prejudice.