commission was not so generous in its interpretation of the Waikato war. Because it believed that there was a Kingitanga plot to attack Auckland, it accepted that some confiscation in the Waikato was justified, although not as much as was carried out.

On the issue of Tauranga, the commission concluded that, by fighting in Waikato, Tauranga Maori had been ‘engaged in rebellion against Her Majesty’s authority’. It concluded that the confiscation was ‘justified and… not excessive’ and that the return of three-quarters of the land confiscated at Tauranga had provided ‘substantial justice’ to Tauranga Maori.⁶

Ngati Ranginui, an iwi of the central Tauranga district, conducted a long-running campaign for the recognition of their raupatu claim. They eventually gathered support from two other iwi, Ngai Te Rangi and Ngati Pukenga, and the Government ‘settled’ their claim in 1981. This arrangement was embodied in the Tauranga Moana Maori Trust Board Act 1981, which set up a board to administer a sum of $250,000 compensation, said in section 6(4) of the Act to be ‘accepted in full and final settlement of all claims of whatever nature arising from or out of any confiscation or acquisition by the Crown of any of the land described in the Schedule to this Act’. The land described in the schedule was the same confiscated land described in the schedule to the Tauranga District Lands Act 1868 (see map 1).

The phrase ‘full and final settlement’ had been used in previous raupatu settlements with other iwi. Following the enactment of the Tauranga Moana Maori Trust Board Act, it seemed that Tauranga Maori had finally had such a settlement themselves. However, by 1981, none of the other raupatu tribes were satisfied with their settlements, mainly because rampant inflation had eroded the value of the annual compensation payments, and they all took the opportunity to lodge claims with the Waitangi Tribunal after 1985, as did Tauranga Maori.⁷ This was no real surprise, since the Sim commission’s terms of reference did not allow it to inquire into the raupatu in light of the Treaty. Nor did the Tauranga Moana Maori Trust Board Act 1981 refer to the Treaty. Despite the fact that the settlements were said to be ‘full and final’, the Waitangi Tribunal is required under the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 to examine such claims in light of the principles of the Treaty.

1.3.1 The Tauranga Moana Tribunal

In December 1990, the chairperson of the Tribunal wrote to the Tauranga raupatu claimants and informed them that the Tribunal wished to hear all their claims together.⁸ At that time, 12 claims had been lodged with the Tribunal concerning the Tauranga Moana district. A Tribunal member, the late Sir Monita Delamere, met with the claimants and recommended that the claims be heard together. On 24 June 1991, the chairperson announced that all Tauranga

6. Ibid, pp 17–20 (pp 18,540–18,543)

7. In 1985, Parliament amended the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 to grant the Waitangi Tribunal retrospective jurisdiction to 1840.

8. Paper 2.11