The parties to the inquiry agreed to the changes in the way in which it was to be conducted.¹⁵ However, there was some concern from claimant counsel and the Crown over the short timeframe for completing it.¹⁶ Some claimant counsel requested that the Crown concede that the confiscation was in breach of the Treaty and thus speed up the inquiry process even more.¹⁷ After further consultation with counsel, the presiding officer issued another direction on 3 October 2000. This reiterated the Tribunal’s intention to proceed to hear and report on the raupatu as the first stage of the inquiry. The definition of ‘raupatu issues’ was slightly expanded to enable the Tribunal to report on the 1927 Sim commission and the Tauranga Maori Trust Board Act 1981 in stage 1 of the inquiry. The direction added that, if the Crown were to concede breaches of Treaty principles over the Tauranga confiscation, as claimant counsel had requested, this would significantly reduce the amount of time necessary to complete the inquiry.¹⁸ The Crown did not reply at that point, but it did issue a statement of response on 20 September 2001. We discuss this below. Eventually, the Tribunal agreed on a new timetable to allow the claimants and the Crown more time to present their evidence.

Following the direction finalising the two-stage inquiry, four more hearings were held to hear claimant evidence. After these, the Crown presented its evidence at Tauranga House, Tauranga Historical Village, from 15 to 18 October 2001. Closing submissions on behalf of the claimants were presented to the Tribunal at Tutereinga Marae, Te Puna, from 3 to 6 December 2001. Crown closing submissions were made at Tauranga House on 31 January 2002. Claimant responses to the Crown’s closing submissions were made in writing and were received by the Tribunal between 7 and 26 March 2002.¹⁹

In the statement of response, filed on 20 September 2001, the Crown acknowledged that, in light of the Waikato Raupatu Claims Settlement Act 1995, ‘perceiving some or all of the tribe Ngaiterangi’ as rebels was ‘unfair’ and that the ‘confiscation of approximately 42,000 acres as punishment for this perceived rebellion was wrongful’.²⁰ Beyond these acknowledgements, the Crown largely denied all the alleged Treaty breaches advanced by the claimants in their statements of claim. In its closing submissions, the Crown acknowledged that it had breached the Treaty by taking land at Tauranga. However, counsel for the Crown stated that it considered this acknowledgement to be of limited assistance to the Tribunal, because it did not concede that Tauranga Maori had suffered any prejudice as a result of Crown actions. Crown counsel expressed the view that the Tribunal should fully inquire into and report on claims, regardless of any perceived Crown concessions.²¹ It was therefore necessary for the Tribunal to report in full on all the claimants’ major allegations of Treaty breach.

15. Paper 2.289

16. Ibid

17. Papers 2.292–2.298, 2.302–2.304

18. Paper 2.299

19. Documents p2, p3–p8, p11–p13

20. Paper 2.363, para 26

21. Document o2, pp 4–5