[Home] [Databases] [WorldLII] [Search] [Feedback] New Zealand Law Commission

[Database Search] [Name Search] [Download] [Help]

Endnotes

[1] New Zealand Law Commission Mäori Custom and Values in New Zealand Law: nzlc sp9 (Wellington, 2001), 90.

[2] Submission of the Mäori Land Court Judges to the Mäori Affairs Select Committee on Te Ture Whenua Mäori Amendment Bill 1999, 13.

[3] Law Commission Act 1985 s 5(1)(b).

[4] Law Commission Act 1985 s 5(2)(a).

[5] The Commission notes that the report of the New Zealand Mäori Council, Kaupapa: Te Wahanga Tuatahi (Wellington, 1983) helped provide the policy basis for Te Ture Whenua Mäori Act 1993, and suggests that a similar approach may be useful with respect to the issues raised in this paper, given both the undoubted importance of Treaty settlements and the need for Mäori to have ownership of the process.

[6] Also known as the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission.

[7] For a discussion of the Treaty of Waitangi settlement process, see appendix A.

[8] Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 s 6(1); see also the definition of "Mäori" in s 2 of the Act.

[9] Waikato-Tainui, Ngai Tahu, Ngati Turangitukua, Pouakani, Te Uri o Hau, Ngati Ruanui, Ngati Whakaue, Te Maunga, Rotoma, Waimakuku, Hauai, Ngati Rangiteaorere have all been signed, with Ngati Tama, Te Uri o Hau and Ngati Ruanui awaiting the passage of legislation implementing their Deed of Settlement.

[10] Ngati Awa, Ngati Mutunga, Rangitaane o Manawatu, Te Atiawa, Nga Rauru and Te Arawa Lakes have all signed Heads of Agreement or Agreements in Principle.

[11] Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act 1992.

[12] See appendix B, and for a summary see appendix C.

[13] Mason Durie, Te Mana, Te Käwanatanga: The Politics of Mäori Self-Determination (Oxford University Press, Auckland, 1998) 226_227.

[14] For example, determining Mäori groups for consultation purposes under the Resource Management Act 1991, amongst others. See, however, Determining Representation Rights under Te Ture Whenua Mäori Act 1993: An Advisory Report for Te Puni Kökiri (NZLC SP8, 2001) which made suggestions for amendments to s 30 Te Ture Whenua Mäori Act 1993 based on concepts of mediation rather than court adjudication. See also the comments made by Judge Wainwright in the paper "Maori Representation and the Courts" delivered at the New Zealand Centre for Public Law's Roles and Perspectives in the Law, 5_6 April 2002, Victoria University of Wellington. See also the Review of the Office of Treaty Settlements by the Mäori Affairs Select Committee (included as appendix A in the 2000/01 Financial Review of the Ministry of Justice, as reported by the Justice and Electoral Select Committee.)

[15] See Office of Treaty Settlements Healing the Past, Building a Future (Wellington, 1999) 52; Justice and Electoral Select Committee 2000/01 Financial Review of the Ministry of Justice, 11.

[16] For instance, it is cost-efficient, from the point of view of both the Crown and claimants, and makes the process easier to manage and work through, helps deal with overlapping interests, and gives the opportunity for the settlement package to cover a wider range of redress.

[17] Crown policy with respect to governance/settlement entities has been developed over the last decade, with the Crown recognising that an entity must represent all members of the claimant community; have transparent decision-making and dispute resolution processes; and be accountable to the claimant community. In the case of dispute resolution, the Crown insists generally on appropriate clauses in the trust deed that deal with `significant transactions', for example, decisions that may involve a significant proportion of the settlement assets. While this type of transaction would obviously fall into one of the categories identified by the Chief Judge above, there are a number of other potential disputes that this type of clause is not designed to cater for.

[18] Translates generally as "genealogy", but in this context used to connote the tracing of descent from a tipuna.

[19] Translates as "ancestor".

[20] In general, translated as "sub-tribe" or "clan". Historically, the major socio-political grouping in Maori culture.

[21] WAI 262.

[22] WAI 176.

[23] WAI 413.

[24] Culminating in the Treaty of Waitangi (State Enterprises) Act 1988 that followed the decision in New Zealand Mäori Council v Attorney-General [1987] 1 NZLR 641.

[25] For example, WAI 790 (also known as the Volcanic Inner Plateau (VIP) claim).

[26] Culminating in the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claim) Settlement Act 1992.

[27] WAI 11.

[28] New Zealand Law Commission Mäori Custom and Values in New Zealand Law: SP9 above n 1.

[29] For example, see Re Edwards (1998) 1 Waiariki ANB 102 (MAC), Re Rangitane o Tamaki Nui A Rua Inc (1996) 1 Takitimu ACMB 96 (MAC).

[30] For example, see Re Oku Raupatu B4B2A Block (2000) 13 ACTK 154 (MAC), Re Waimania Hohua (2001) 10 APRO 43 (MAC), Re Hoturangi Tautau (1999) 33 ACMB 228 (MAC) and Re Rawinia Tuki (1999) 9 Waiariki ACMB 247 (MAC).

[31] For example, see Re Tikirahi Block (1995) Waikato Maniapoto ACMB 266 (MAC) and Re Lynette Walker (1995) 18 Waikato Maniapoto ACMB 260 (MAC).

[32] For example, see Re Rotoma No 1 Block Inc (1996) 1 Waiariki ACMB 25 and Re Tataraakina C Block (1994) 11 Takitimu ACMB 50 (MAC).

[33] For example, see Re Te Karaka Ahi Tapu (2000) 5 APWH 209 (MAC) and Re Te Hapua 24 (2000) Tokerau ACMB 275 (MAC).

[34] Te Runanga o Atiawa v Te Atiawa Iwi Authority (10 November 1999) High Court New Plymouth CP13/99 Robertson J.

[35] On this point the Commission notes that the work of the Te Mätähauriki Institute at the University of Waikato. In particular, the project Te Matapunenga (which involves the compilation of a knowledge base of Mäori customary law) will provide useful references for the judiciary and public alike.

[36] See Stephen Cornell and Joseph Kalt (eds) "What Can Tribes Do? Strategies and Institutions in American Indian Economic Development" Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development website at http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/hpaied/reloading%20the%20dice.pdf (last accessed 26/02/02).

[37] We also note with approval the comments of Dame Evelyn Stokes in "Individualisation of Mäori Interests in Land" (Te Mätähauariki Institute Monograph, 2002, forthcoming)

185_186:

Governing institutions match the societies culture when its governing authority is exercised and its members regard that as legitimate ... Institutions have to have legitimacy with the people if they are to work.

[38] Although some groups have created an entity well in advance of settling their claims, or even before entering negotiations. A standardisation of this process would be useful.

[39] Christian Whata, Martin Dawson and Gina Rangi "Inter and Intra Tribal Debate" (Paper presented at the Business Information in Action Public Law Conference 2002, Duxton Hotel, Wellington, 16_17 April 2002) 8.

[40] An exception to this rule was the process undertaken by Ngati Ruanui, where the concern of `information overload' was expressed. This is an understandable reason for separating the two issues, and a sensible approach to take.

[41] Mäori Affairs Select Committee Report of the Mäori Affairs Select Committee on the Te Uri o Hau Claims Settlement Bill, 3_4.

[42] See appendix B, paras B32_B34.

[43] Letter from OTS to the Law Commission 18 October 2001.

[44] See Walters J "Mäori Trusts and Mäori Charitable Bodies" [2002] NZLJ 65_66.

[45] Quoted in Maori Custom and Values in New Zealand Law: NZLC SP9, above n 1, 3.

[46] Joseph Williams "The Mäori Land Court _ a separate legal system?" (Paper presented at the Victoria University of Wellington Public Law Seminar Series Address, Victoria University of Wellington Law School, Wellington, 10 July 2001).

[47] Discussed in Mäori Custom and Values in New Zealand Law: NZLC SP9, above n 1, paras 130_136.

[48] Discussed in Mäori Custom and Values in New Zealand Law: NZLC SP9, above n 1, paras 137_149.

[49] Discussed in Mäori Custom and Values in New Zealand Law: NZLC SP9, above n 1, paras 150_155.

[50] Discussed in Mäori Custom and Values in New Zealand Law: NZLC SP9, above n 1, paras 156_162.

[51] Discussed in Mäori Custom and Values in New Zealand Law: NZLC SP9, above n 1, paras 163_166.

[52] See Mäori Custom and Values in New Zealand Law: NZLC SP9, above n 1, para 125; in particular, see also footnote 161.

[53] See Mäori Custom and Values in New Zealand Law: NZLC SP9, above n 1, paras 183_200.

[54] Judith Binney "The Native Land Court and the Mäori Communities" in Judith Binney, Judith Bassett and Erik Olssen (eds) The People and the Land: Te Tangata me te Whenua: An illustrated history of New Zealand 1820_1920 (Allen & Unwin, Wellington, 1990) 17.

[55] AE Brougham and AW Reed The Reed Book of Mäori Proverbs (Reed Publishing, Auckland, 1963) 14; Sidney M Mead and Neil Grove Ngä Pëpeha a ngä Tïpuna (Victoria University Press, Wellington, 2001) 136.

[56] See Mead and Grove Ngä Pëpeha a ngä Tïpuna, above n 55, 282.

[57] Sir George Grey Ko nga Whakapepeha me nga Whakaahuareka a nga Tipuna o Aotearoa: Proverbial and Popular Sayings of the Ancestors of the New Zealand Race (Saul and Solomon, Cape Town, 1857) 27.

[58] See Mead and Grove, above n 55, 262 and Brougham and Reed The Reed Book of Mäori Proverbs, above n 55, 11.

[59] Office of Treaty Settlements, TPK and the Crown Law Office are all involved in reviewing any proposed settlement entity and provide reports to the Minister in Charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations (who has delegated authority from the Cabinet to approve the entity).

[60] For example, see Shane Gibbons "Realising our leadership potential: change or be damned" (Paper presented at the Foundation for Research, Science and Technology Young Mäori Leaders Conference, Wellington, 6 August 2001) 14.

[61] Joan Metge Korero Tahi: Talking Together (Auckland University Press with Te Mätähauariki Institute, Auckland, 2001), 8_10.

[62] Nin Thomas and Khylee Quince "Mäori disputes and their resolution" in Peter Spiller (ed) Dispute Resolution in New Zealand (Oxford University Press, Auckland, 1999) 228_233.

[63] See also Christian Whata, Martin Dawson and Gina Rangi "Inter and Intra Tribal Debate", above n 39, 8.

[64] This could be through the creation of a new statute, or through an addition to an already existing statute. If the latter option is chosen, then a possibility is the insertion of relevant sections into the Te Ture Whenua Mäori Act 1993.

[65] We note that the core obligations we have identified (with the exception of dispute resolution) are all of a type generally regarded as necessary in order for approval of the settlement entity to be given by the Crown, under current policy.

[66] For example, trusts created either during a settlor's lifetime or by will, contain an irreducible core of obligations owed by trustees to beneficiaries and enforceable by them. This irreducible core is fundamental to the concept of a trust. Listed companies have detailed rules to ensure that shareholders are apprised, by full disclosure, of what directors have done with their assets. This information also enables shareholders to trade their shares readily on the stock exchange. Shareholders' Councils are a recent innovation in cooperative dairy companies that allow shareholders' representatives to deal more effectively with management and report to shareholders on what is being done with their assets. See generally Underhill and Hayton Law of Trusts and Trustees (15 ed, Butterworths, London, 1995) 3; Jill Martin Hanbury and Martin: Modern Equity (14 ed, Sweet & Maxwell, London, 1993) 46; and AJ Oakley (ed) Trends in Contemporary Trust Law (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1996) 47.

[67] For example, Hospital Products Limited v United States Surgical Corporation (1984) 156 CLR 41, 96 (HCA) Mason J and Lac Minerals Limited v International Corona Resources Limited (1989) 61 DLR (4th) 14, 61 (PC) Sopinka J. See also Elders Pastoral Limited v Bank of New Zealand [1989] 2 NZLR 180 (CA).

[68] Hospital Products Limited v United States Surgical Corporation above n 67, 96. The following types of relationship have been labelled as fiduciary in nature: trustee and beneficiary; agent and principal; solicitor and client; employer and employee; director and company; members of a partnership, as between themselves. Additionally, a relationship can be totally fiduciary, or fiduciary only in part: New Zealand Netherlands Society "Oranje" Inc v Kuys [1973] 2 NZLR 163 (PC).

[69] In particular, see Te Ture Whenua Mäori Act 1993 ss 210, 211, 215, 219_245.

[70] In particular, see Te Ture Whenua Mäori Act 1993 ss 246_284.

[71] Hospital Products Limited v United States Surgical Corporation, above n 67, 96_97.

[72] Fiduciary obligations may be limited or varied: Berlei Hestia (NZ) Limited v Fernyhough [1980] 2 NZLR 150, 166 (SC) Mahon J.

[73] Clark Boyce v Mouat [1993] 3 NZLR 641, 648 (PC) Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle.

[74] For example, see Keech v Sandford (1726) Sel Cas 1 King 61; 25 ER223.

[75] See generally New Zealand Law Commission Some Problems in the Law of Trusts (NZLC R79, Wellington, 2002).

[76] Armitage v Nurse [1998] CH 241, 253_254.

[77] Berlei Hestia (NZ) Limited v Fernyhough, above n 72.

[78] Berlei Hestia (NZ) Limited v Fernyhough, above n 72, 166; see also Levin v Clark [1962] NSWR 686 and Re Broadcasting Station 2GB Pty Ltd [1964_65] NSWR 1648.

[79] See, generally, Part XII of the Companies Act 1993 that deals with disclosure to shareholders of a company through the dissemination of annual reports and financial statements. See also the Financial Reporting Act 1993.

[80] Because membership of the group is achieved through whakapapa there is no choice about the group to which someone will belong. Because members of the kin group do not have the option to trade that membership, it is essential that they have proper disclosure to ensure that property is being dealt with adequately on their behalf. Similar circumstances arise with respect to shareholders in Mäori incorporations or beneficiaries in Mäori trusts. Shareholders are not readily able to sell their interests because of the alienation provisions of Te Ture Whenua Mäori Act 1993. Generally speaking, sale of interests can only be made to the preferred class of alienee. See Te Ture Whenua Mäori Act 1993 s 4 for the two definitions of "preferred class of alienee".

[81] Powers and Duties of Directors are set out in Part VIII of the Companies Act 1993

ss 126_138.

[82] Companies Act 1993 s 128.

[83] Companies Act 1993 s 131(1).

[84] Companies Act 1993 s 133.

[85] Companies Act 1993 s 134.

[86] Companies Act 1993 s 135.

[87] Companies Act 1993 s 136.

[88] Companies Act 1993 s 194.

[89] Companies Act 1993 s 300.

[90] Compare with the remedy set out in section 174 of the Companies Act 1993.

[91] Re Proprietors of Mangakino Township Incorporated and Pouakani No 2 (1999) 73 Taupo MB 30, 32_33.

[92] Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 Part XIII, ss 246_284 and Maori Land Court Rules 1994, Part 14 (Rules 134_139).

[93] Particularly Ahu Whenua Trusts. See generally Part XII Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 and the provisions of Part 11 of the Mäori Land Court Rules 1994 dealing with meetings of assembled owners.

[94] Note the different voting regimes in Parts XII and XIII of Te Ture Whenua Mäori Act 1993 with respect to trusts and Mäori incorporations. Also, see the Mäori Land Court Rules 1994.

[95] Here, we wish to emphasise the distinction between the vote required to approve the settlement entity (which as a matter of course will provide rules for future voting in the constitution) and the exercise of voting rights pursuant to that constitution. We raise the possibility of whether the Mäori Land Court should exercise some supervisory jurisdiction in the former case, to ensure that the rules adopted meet with the majority approval of the claimants.

[96] Consultation will also need to determine whether age restrictions are to apply and whether proxies can be exercised.

[97] See Porima v Te Kauhanganui o Waikato Inc [2001] 1 NZLR 472. In that case, the objects of Te Kauhanganui o Waikato Inc were to "protect, advance, develop and unify the interests of Waikato", to uphold and support the Kingitanga "which incorporates the principles of unity, the retention of the tribal base and collective ownership and co-operation amongst peoples", to foster among members of Waikato the principles of "whakaiti, rangimarie and kia tupato" and "to achieve settlements of outstanding claims".

[98] By way of example, see Te Runanga o Atiawa v Te Atiawa Iwi Authority above n 34.

[99] See above n 17.

[100] Christian Whata, Martin Dawson and Gina Rangi "Inter and intra tribal debate", above

n 39, 16.

[101] Te Runanga o Wharekauri Rekohu v Attorney-General [1992] 2 NZLR 301; Greensill and Ors v Tainui Mäori Trust Board (17 May 1995) M117/95, High Court, Hamilton Registry, Hammond J; Te Ngai Tuahuriri Runanga and Ors v Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu and Attorney-General (13 May 1998) CP187/97, High Court, Christchurch Registry, Master Venning; Waitaha Taiwhenua o Waitaki Trust and Anor v Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu (17 June 1998) CP 41/98, High Court, Christchurch Registry, Panckhurst J; Kai Tohu Tohu o Puketapu Hapü Incorporated v Attorney-General and Te Atiawa Iwi Authority (5 February 1999) CP 344/97, High Court, Wellington Registry, Doogue J; Hayes and Anor v Waitangi Tribunal and Ors (10 May 2001) CP 111/01, High Court, Wellington Registry, Goddard J; Rukutai Watene and Ors v The Minister in Charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations and Ors (11 May 2001) CP 120/01, High Court, Wellington Registry, Goddard J.

[102] Carrie Wainwright "Maori Representation and the Courts" (Paper presented at the New Zealand Centre for Public Law Roles and Perspectives in the Law, Victoria University of Wellington Law School, Wellington, 5_6 April 2002) 21.

[103] Specialists in a particular field of knowledge, and in this context experts in tikanga/whakapapa.

[104] The Commission suggests that these options are not mutually exclusive or exhaustive, and settlement groups may be able to take a `mix and match' approach in designing the best form of process for them.

[105] Te Ture Whenua Mäori Amendment Act 2002.

[106] See Wainwright, above n 102, 25_28.

[107] For instance, Judge Durie (as he then was) in his 1979 submission to the Royal Commission into the Mäori Land Court suggested that the Court was, in fact, a court of `social purpose'. In this context, he noted that its main purpose was to find `social solutions' to the disputes that came before it, through, as far as is possible, reconciling family groups.

[108] See Joseph, PA Constitutional and Administrative Law in New Zealand (2 ed, Brookers, Wellington, 2001) 748_749.

[109] See Joseph, above n 108, 749 citing, in support, Royal Australasian College of Surgeons v Phipps [1999] 3 NZLR 1(CA) 11 (decision reversed without the point being discussed: [2000] 2 NZLR 513 (PC)) and Mercury Energy Limited v Electricity Corporation of New Zealand Limited [1994] 2 NZLR 385 (PC) 388; see also Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] 1 AC 374 (HL) 409.

[110] In particular, see New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney General [1987] 1 NZLR 641 (HC) and (CA) and New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney General [1992] NZLR 576 (CA). See also Sir Robin Cooke, Empowerment and Accountability: The Quest for Administrative Justice (Judicial Colloquium, Balliol College, Oxford, 21_24 September 1993) 10; cited in Joseph, above n 108, 779, fn 389.

[111] Often these types of settlement dispute are seen as non-justiciable.

[112] This certification should be conclusive evidence that the entity has been validly created, and would be physical evidence of ratification of the entity. Third parties could deal with the entity without fear of challenge to its valid creation. But, members of the settlement group, and those responsible for its management, could also resolve their disputes under the procedure in the constitution.

[113] Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975, s 4.

[114] Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975, Second Schedule, clause 8.

[115] See above n 114, s 6(1).

[116] For a discussion of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi see Mäori Custom and Values in New Zealand Law: NZLC SP9, above n 1, paras 334_351 and He Tirohanga ö Kawa ki te Tiriti o Waitangi (Te Puni Kökiri, Wellington, 2001) 73_100.

[117] In a claim where land is at issue, and is Crown forest land subject to a Crown forestry licence or `memorialised lands', the Waitangi Tribunal does have some powers that are binding upon the Crown. See State-Owned Enterprises Act 1986 s 27B and Crown Forest Assets Act 1989 s 36.

[118] Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975, s 5(a).

[119] 10 October 1975; date by Royal Assent.

[120] Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975, s 6(1) as inserted by Treaty of Waitangi Amendment Act 1985, s 3(1).

[121] This includes a descendant of a Mäori, or a Mäori on behalf of a group of Mäori _ see s 6(1) and s 2 of the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975.

[122] This is an administrative requirement of the Waitangi Tribunal so that the claim is assigned a unique identifier.

[123] The Waitangi Tribunal has generally favoured an approach dealing with all claims in a particular area.

[124] Geoffrey Melvin The Claims Process of the Waitangi Tribunal _ Information for Claimants (Waitangi Tribunal, Wellington, 2000).

[125] For example, see Waitangi Tribunal Turangi Township Remedies Report (Wai 84, GP Publications, 1998) and Waitangi Tribunal Te Whanganui-a-Orotu Report on Remedies (Wai 55, GP Publications, 1998).

[126] Determined by Cabinet as those Crown acts or omissions that occurred before 21 September 1992.

[127] See Office of Treaty Settlements Healing the Past, Building a Future, above n 15, 10_14.

[128] This is the case at any stage during the Waitangi Tribunal process except when the parties are preparing for, or taking part in, a remedies hearing.

[129] See Office of Treaty Settlements Healing the Past, Building a Future, above n 15, 45.

[130] See Office of Treaty Settlements Healing the Past, Building a Future, above n 15, 41.

[131] Note the comments of the Waitangi Tribunal in Pakakohi and Tangahoe Settlement Claims Report (Wai 758, Wai 142, GP Publications, Wellington) 66, where the Waitangi Tribunal noted in relation to the distinct identities of the Pakakohi and Tangahoe hapü within the Ngati Ruanui iwi, that their traditions needed to be "factored into the settlement deed ... [which if not included could] create a fresh grievance out of the settlement of an old one".

[132] A mandate checklist is noted in Office of Treaty Settlements Treaty of Waitangi Claims _ Direct Negotiations Process _ An Introduction (Wellington, 1999) 9. Briefly, the checklist requires the kin group to provide statements outlining who the kin claimant group is; a description of the claims; definition of the area of the claims; who the beneficiaries are; the names and addresses of the body and its representatives (including negotiators); how the mandate was obtained; a description of the processes of the decision-making body and the rules for eligibility of membership to the claimant group; a statement of the limitations of the power of the negotiators; an agreement that the Crown may make the mandate known, and the signed and witnessed deed.

[133] Typically, types of redress will include (1) an apology; (2) cultural redress that may include the transfer of wähi tapu and wähi whakahirahira to tribal ownership, measures to allow the kin group greater participation in the management of natural resources within their rohe and other measures to recognise their mana within the rohe. For instance Statutory Acknowledgements, Deeds of Recognition and Departmental Protocols may be entered into to this end; (3) commercial and financial redress including the return of Crown lands, cash and other resources to tribal ownership.

[134] See Office of Treaty Settlements Healing the Past, Building a Future, above n 15, 61.

[135] This stage in the process is currently under review and may be amended or abolished for future negotiations _ see Media Statement, Hon Margaret Wilson, 19 February 2002.

[136] See Office of Treaty Settlements Healing the Past, Building a Future, above n 15, 66.

[137] Office of Treaty Settlements Treaty of Waitangi Claims _ Direct Negotiations Process _ An Introduction, above n 132, 18.

[138] Office of Treaty Settlements, "Matter required in disclosure material for governance entities" Internal Draft 10 June 2002.

[139] See relevant provisions in the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act 1992 and the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975.

[140] Translates in this context as `policy'.

[141] Te Ohu Kai Moana He Tohu Arahi _ A guide to representation on Iwi organisations, (Wellington, 2001) 6_8.

[142] See Te Ohu Kai Moana, above n 141, 9_12.

[143] Office of Treaty Settlements Treaty of Waitangi Claims _ Direct Negotiations Process _ An Introduction, above n 132, 73.

[144] Mason Committee Report on Mäori Trust Boards to Chief Executive of Te Puni Kökiri, (Te Puni Kökiri, Wellington, 1994) 58_70.

[145] See Te Runanga O Ngai Tahu Act 1996, s 20 and Waikato Raupatu Claims Settlement Act 1995, s 28.

[146] For example, see MPK Sorrenson "Land Purchase Methods and their Effect on the Mäori Population, 1865_1901" (1956) 65 Journal of the Polynesian Society 183, 191 and 192; Ian Pool Te Iwi Mäori: A New Zealand Population: Past, Present and Projected (Auckland University Press, Auckland, 1991) ch 5; Judith Binney "The Native Land Court and the Mäori Communities" in Judith Binney, Judith Bassett and Erik Olssen (eds) The People and the Land: Te Tangata me te Whenua: An illustrated history of New Zealand 1820_1920 (Allen & Unwin, Wellington, 1990).

[147] Waitangi Tribunal, The Taranaki Report: Kaupapa Tuatahi (Wai 143, GP Publications, Wellington, 1996) 3.

[148] Te Ture Whenua Mäori Act 1993, Preamble.

[149] See Te Ture Whenua Mäori Act 1993 s 17(1).

[150] See for example, Waikato Raupatu Claims Settlement Act 1995 s 32.

[151] However, note the media statement from Hon Dr Michael Cullen and Hon Parekura Horomia of 11 April 2002: "Entities that qualify as charities will not be excluded from the associated exemption from income tax simply because they benefit people connected by blood ties".

[152] Policy Advice Division of the Inland Revenue Department, Government Discussion Document No 2 of the Tax Simplification Series: Taxation of Mäori Organisations (Wellington, 2001) 67.

[153] New Zealand Law Commission Some Problems in the Law of Trusts (NZLC PP48, Wellington, 2002) 1.