defense of their lands and people. They lost many lives in the fighting which followed and great social dislocation was caused to so-called ‘rebels’ and ‘loyalists’ alike.

The confiscations of land which accompanied the British military advance included the East Wairoa block of at least 51,000 acres (owned by Hauraki tribes), and over a million acres in central and eastern Waikato in which Hauraki tribes owned significant interests. Only a few thousand pounds and 3000 or 4000 acres of land have ever been awarded to Hauraki Maori in compensation for these losses, even to those deemed ‘loyal’. Further reserves were promised under the Waikato Confiscated Lands Act 1880, but the Crown acknowledges that ‘These arrangements were not formalised at the time leading to confusion and problems … 15 years later when they were eventually formalised’.¹

The Crown has further conceded that:

► ‘In general terms that the application of the confiscation policy in respect of land in East Wairoa and central Waikato (Maramarua) was unjust and was in breach of the principles of the Treaty.’

► ‘The East Wairoa confiscation [was] … from groups that were, for the most part, considered loyal.’

► ‘Unlike the Waikato confiscations, very limited land within the East Wairoa confiscation was returned to Maori.’

► ‘Many of the claimants find the use of the term rebel perjoritive… It is further acknowledged that this has had a detrimental effect.’

► ‘The stark evidence of the dislocation caused by the period of war and confiscation, and the effects of this on Maori communities, weighs heavily with the Crown.’

► ‘The legislative authority to take the land was never perfected and the practical machinery required to implement it never really existed in New Zealand.’

► ‘Given the very real potential for injustice arising from the inherently draconian nature of the powers and having abrogated the Article 2 guarantee of protection, the Crown was under a Treaty duty to take particular care in implementing the legislation. However, it clearly failed to do so.’²

We welcome the Crown’s concessions because of the seriousness of the injuries to Hauraki tribes, and because the particular interests of Hauraki have not been taken account of in earlier attempts at redress. The Sim commission of 1928 did not consider the East Wairoa confiscation apart from the Waikato confiscations generally, nor the extent to which Hauraki tribes were affected by the central Waikato confiscation. Hauraki iwi, as such, were not included amongst the beneficiaries of the Waikato Raupatu Claims Settlement Act 1995 and the boundary of the Waikato Tainui raupatu claim area excluded the East Wairoa confiscation.

1. Paper 2.550, p 22

2. Document AA1, pp 78-79, 106-107