the prevailing state of disorder, the chief said ‘O Governor! Sit. I, Tamati Waka, say to thee, sit. Do not thou go away from us; remain for us, a father, a judge, a peacemaker’.⁸³

The report added that, in promising ‘good governance’, the Crown should not ‘allow one iwi an unfair advantage over another’. This was described as a ‘principle or duty arising from the Treaty that the Crown act fairly and impartially towards Maori’.⁸⁴

Their hope that the Governor would act as a judge and peacemaker between the tribes encouraged Nene and many others to sign the Treaty. As they saw it, this was the main objective of the kawanatanga or governance that they had ceded to the Crown in article 1 of the Treaty. Maintaining peace between iwi also meant that the Crown needed to treat iwi equally, and not favour one at the expense of others. This was particularly important in view of the imbalances and animosities that had arisen from some 20 years of musket warfare prior to 1840. Those animosities would be rekindled during the war between the Crown and Maori in the 1860s and result in the recruitment by the Crown of some Maori to fight against their old enemies. When we apply the principle of acting fairly and impartially towards Maori to the situation in Tauranga, we particularly examine whether the Crown treated the hapu of Tauranga equally when awarding land in the aftermath of the confiscation.

1.5.3 Previous raupatu inquiries

Finally, we note that the Tribunal has already reported on the Taranaki and Ngati Awa confiscations, while the Crown has dealt separately with the Waikato confiscation. These reports and the Waikato–Tainui legislation deal with raupatu claims in light of the principles of the Treaty. We discuss the significance for Tauranga of these previous raupatu inquiries in chapter 6. Here, we merely note, by way of introduction, two precedents from the Tribunal’s Taranaki Report and the Crown’s Waikato–Tainui settlement.

The Taranaki Tribunal was blunt: ‘The Treaty guarantee to Maori of their lands and estates for as long as they wished to keep them was an unequivocal undertaking, with which the [New Zealand Settlements] Act and policies were in direct conflict.’ The Tribunal added that ‘No one has seriously contended otherwise’ and that Crown counsel in that inquiry had ‘admitted the Taranaki confiscation was an injustice and a breach of Treaty principles’.⁸⁵ Meanwhile, the Crown acknowledged in the Waikato Raupatu Claims Settlement Act 1995 that ‘grave injustice was done to Waikato when the Crown, in breach of the Treaty of Waitangi, sent its forces into the Waikato, occupied and subsequently confiscated Waikato land, and unfairly labelled Waikato as rebels’.

83. William Colenso, The Authentic and Genuine History of the Signing of the Treaty of Waitangi, New Zealand, February 5 and 61840 (Wellington: Government Printer, 1890), p 27 (as quoted in Waitangi Tribunal, Maori Development Corporation Report, p 32)

84. Waitangi Tribunal, Maori Development Corporation Report, pp 31–32

85. Waitangi Tribunal, The Taranaki Report: Kaupapa Tuatahi, p 131