in the north and incorporates an area of 1.8 million acres.⁵ They claim that 80 per cent of the area lost was lost due to direct Crown action, including 14 per cent, or 205,000 acres, as a result of confiscation. Twenty per cent of the loss is alleged to be the result of private land purchases in the period 1865 to 1997.⁶

The Wai 100 claimants described the 10 key issues of their claim as: first, the confiscation of land in the East Wairoa block (western Firth of Thames), near Katikati (western Bay of Plenty), as well as at Maramarua, in the Piako district, and near Te Aroha. Secondly, prejudicial Crown policies towards Maori land through pre-1865 Crown purchasing, through the post-1865 operation of the Native Land Court, and through various other practices, including the Public Works Act. Thirdly, the Crown assumption of the ownership of all minerals (and its failure to fulfil the terms of the original gold-mining agreements), and takings of geothermal resources and hot springs. Fourthly, the Crown assumption of the ownership and management of the foreshore. Fifthly, the Crown failure to prevent the destruction of natural resource habitat (eg, streams, rivers, and wetlands) resulting in the loss of traditional food sources. Sixthly, the taking of (and looked-for return of) specific parcels of land through Crown legislation such as the Public Works Act or the Hauraki Plains Drainage Act, and for roading, reclamation works, and other infrastructure services, especially where no longer used for the purpose for which they were taken. Seventhly, the Crown failure to prevent the destruction of sacred places (wahi tapu) and the loss of cultural heritage (taonga). Eighthly, for the Crown’s failure to prevent cultural breakdown and social deprivation resulting in poor socio-economic outcomes for Hauraki Maori. Ninthly, the official imposition on Maori of economic disadvantages, including the loss of land in lieu of rates payments. Finally, the tenth key issue was defined as the failure by the Crown to ensure adequate, inalienable land reserves to meet Hauraki Maori needs.⁷

In addition to these 10 key issues, the HMTB claim also identifies pre-Treaty and preemption waiver transactions, the Crown’s acquisition of the Ohinemuri, Piako, and Hauraki Plains blocks, and timber leases as sources of grievance.⁸

The HMTB also submitted claims relating to three specific issues: Wai 373 relates to the Waikato raupatu and, in particular, to Hauraki interests in the Maramarua State Forest; Wai 374 relates to central Auckland railway lands, but these are outside the Hauraki inquiry district; and Wai 650 was filed in relation to the Athenree State Forest and the Te Puna-Katikati (also called Katitkati Te Puna block) purchase. The Tribunal has commented on the overlap

5. Document A5, p 7; doc A51, p 3; doc A52, pp 8-11; doc A74, para 37. It should be noted that neither Mahurangi nor Matakana is included in the Hauraki district inquiry area: see fig 1. The Katikati raupatu area was included and dealt with in in the Tauranga inquiry district.

6. Document A5, p 7

7. Ibid, pp 2-3

8. Claim 1.3(b), pp 20-21, 35-44