General Assembly for two years after their assent. Although by the

1860s the Governor himself was becoming a figure of more constitutional than practical significance, in most respects he remained responsible for Native affairs until 1864 and still wielded considerate pace and mana in that area throughput the period with which we are concerned 1860-1880

27.       Lastly there is the fact that, for the key period on which these claims are focused, there was a state of war in the central North Island. Regardless of who can be said ultimately to responsible for that conflict, it was a reality with which the government had to deal.

28.       It is against this background that the Crown’s performance of its duty to govern falls to be judged.

The Crown’s duty to protect Maori land

29.       In the context of the Tauranga Moana claims, two principal issues arise in relation to this duty:

29.1         Land confiscation

29.2      The purchase by the Crown of the Te Puna Katikati block.

Confiscation

30.       As far as the first is concerned, the compulsory acquisition by the Crown of land from Maori who do not freely want to give up their lands is necessarily a prima facie breach of the Crown’s duty to protect Maori land. In this way it follows that in principle confiscation is in breach of the Treaty. However, the inquiry cannot stop there. In what circumstances did the Crown confiscate land in Tauranga? Was confiscation in any sense a legitimate or orthodox response to the circumstances then prevailing in Tauranga? Did Maori in any sense acquiesce? Was confiscation anathema to Maori cultural norms? What alternatives to confiscation were there? What prejudice did Maori suffer? How did the Crown determine which lands it would confiscate? All these questions, and more, are relevant to the Tribunal’s inquiry.