resources of Harataunga’. The Wai 792 claimants were particularly concerned with providing ‘detail about the traditional history of how the hapu members of Te Aitanga a Mate, Te Aowera and Te Whanau a Rakairoa acquired their rights and interests in Harataunga [Kennedy Bay]’, and ‘how those members of three hapu lost their rights and interests’.⁴⁶

Wai 866 was made by Pakiriki Harrison in June 2000 on behalf of members of Te Aitanga-a-Mate, Te Aowera, and Te Whanau-a-Rakairoa. The Wai 866 claimants describe themselves as ‘tangata hau kainga and keepers of ahi ka at Harataunga and Mataora’.⁴⁷ Counsel for the Wai 866 claimants has described them as being of:

the Ngati Porou of te [T]airawhiti, but have permanently occupied Harataunga and Mataora for over two centuries within the bosom of Hauraki. They have emerged as a unique band of Ngati Porou. They retain both the advantages of their connections to Hauraki and to Hikurangi, while maintaining the special identity that such a geographical isolation engenders.⁴⁸

Counsel also described them as ‘a tight knit community who occupy a geographically discrete location’.⁴⁹

A fourth claim relating to Harataunga was brought by Korohere Ngapo on behalf of Nga Uri a Maata Ngapo and descendants of Marutuahu ki Harataunga (Wai 968). The Wai 968 claimants are of Ngati Tamatera and Ngati Paoa, and their claim deals with the effects of the marriage of Te Rakahurumai of Ngati Porou and Te Paea, the birth of Maata Ngapo, the tuku of Harataunga, and the alleged failure of the Native Land Court to note the residual rights of Marutuahu in Harataunga.⁵⁰

The Harataunga claims relate to gold mining and timber licence revenue; the findings of the MacCormick commission; the reform of customary land tenure; the operation of the Native Land Court and the impact of survey liens; the taking of land for public works; the taking of land at Mataora as a result of boundary changes; the Crown’s acquisition of land under the Native Townships Act 1895, including Rangiriri (the Harataunga 2 block), the effects of rating and alleged omissions of the Maori Trustee, and foreshore and seabed issues. We have been greatly assisted in our consideration of these issues by the well-researched and detailed evidence submitted by and for the Wai 792 claimants in particular, notably the series of research reports presented by Parekura White.

46. Document Y18, p 3. The relevant submissions and evidence in relation to the Wai 792 claim include documents R16, R16(a), R33, S8(a)-(d), S9, S17-S20, Y18, and AA10.

47. Document Y19, p 3

48. Ibid, pp 3-4

49. Ibid, p 6. The relevant submissions and evidence in relation to the Wai 866 claim include documents M41, R16, R16(a), R33, S8(a)-(d), S9, S17, S21-S27, S35, Y19, and Y19(a).

50. The relevant submissions and evidence in relation to the Wai 968 claim include documents X2, X4-X10, X28, Z5, and AA9.