followed many consultative hui around the motu at which there was overwhelming support for recognition of a Marutūāhu Treaty negotiations mandate.

>            The second completed mandate application was from the Hauraki Māori Trust Board in April 2006. The ‘make up’ of this proposal involves a structure exercising 14 votes:

>            12 votes from each of the members of HMTB.

>            1 vote each from two other individual representatives.

51.         As at the time of writing this evidence, the Crown has not made a decision on its recognition of a Treaty mandate for the people of Marutūāhu and Pare Hauraki. Given the usual lag time between mandate recognition and agreeing terms of negotiation, it is likely that negotiations will not commence until 2007.

52.         In the meantime, should the Tribunal in this inquiry be persuaded to exercise its remedies powers over any Crown owned assets, for example the Athenree Forest in respect of which the Tribunal has confirmed the interests of the Marutūāhu, the Crown’s decision as to mandate recognition in Hauraki would no doubt be relevant in identifying the recipient body. However, in respect of Katikati - Te Puna, it is to be remembered that the Waitangi Tribunal has upheld the customary interests of the Marutūāhu tribes. Accordingly, the only appropriate body for any such return is a Marutūāhu body.