CEDING MANA, RANGATIRATANGA AND SOVEREIGNTY TO THE CROWN
THE DEEDS OF SETTLEMENT OF THE CROWN FOR
TE RARAWA, TE AUPŌURI AND NGĀI TAKOTO
It is clear from reading the Deeds of Settlement for Te Rarawa, Te Aupōuri and Ngāi Takoto
that each one is attempting to have the corporate bodies for those iwi cede the mana,
rangatiratanga and sovereignty of their ancestors to the British Crown. In doing so the
deeds are attempting to nullify both He Whakaputanga o te Rangatiratanga o Nu Tireni and
Te Tiriti o Waitangi. He Whakaputanga is the declaration of hapū sovereignty made by those
ancestors. Te Tiriti is the treaty entered into by many of those same ancestors and many
others and the British Crown in 1840. I have been unable to find any protection in the Deeds
for the mana and tino rangatiratanga of the whānau and hapū, or any reference to the claim
being taken by Ngāpuhi in this respect, Wai 1040. What is in the Deeds is that the
settlements as legislated will be final and will extinguish all listed claims including the
overarching and very general Wai 22 and Wai 45 as they relate to Te Rarawa, Te Aupōuri
and Ngāi Takoto.
In this article I examine the relevant sections of each of the Deeds of Settlement to
demonstrate how they individually and collectively attempt to disenfranchise the whānau
and hapū who make up those iwi. An increasing number of whānau, hapū and iwi are now
distancing themselves from these deeds and actively opposing them. They cannot be forced
to cede the mana and sovereignty they inherited from their ancestors, either by the iwi
corporate bodies or by the Crown. I will demonstrate instead that the Deeds show that it is
the iwi corporate bodies who inexplicably cede their own mana and sovereignty, reducing
themselves to a subservient role as loyal subjects of the British Crown.
The Purpose of the Deeds of Settlement
The Deeds of Settlement for Te Rarawa, Te Aupōuri and Ngāi Takoto, each drafted in the
first instance by the Crown and currently available on the Office of Treaty Settlements
website, set out the conditions under which all the historical claims of those iwi against the
Crown are extinguished. These include all the claims of the whānau and hapū of those iwi,
whether they agree or not, and in several cases, the claims of other iwi as well.
Claims are taken against the British Crown where it or its representatives have breached the
treaty entered into in 1840 by rangatira of hapū throughout the country and the Crown.
Many whānau, hapū and iwi of Te Hiku o Te Ika, including those of Te Rarawa, Te Aupōuri
and Ngāi Takoto, took their claims to the Waitangi Tribunal, a judicial body appointed and
controlled by the Crown. The claims specify how and where claimants hold and exercise
their mana and tino rangatiratanga, including their sovereignty, and the breaches of the
treaty committed by the Crown.
The Tribunal inquired into their claims for the period between
1840 and 1865,
and upheld them. The Tribunal found that by 1865 almost all of their lands
had been illegitimately claimed by the Crown. Furthermore the Tribunal confirmed that, in
spite of the Crown’s illegitimate claims to the contrary, underlying native title to the
ancestral lands of the hapū had not been extinguished. The Tribunal has yet to investigate
claims arising from treaty breaches perpetrated throughout Te Hiku o Te Ika after 1865.
Many whānau and hapū claims fall within this period but are being extinguished by these
Hapū enter into settlements with the Crown in order to remove the prejudice caused by the
breaches of the treaty and to confirm hapū mana and tino rangatiratanga. The Crown enters
into settlements to extinguish all claims against it, to extinguish native title and to legislate
its sovereignty over those settling. The Deeds show that, provided whānau and hapū who
make up an iwi ratify those deeds in numbers acceptable to the Crown, the Crown’s purpose
will be achieved. Most of the whānau, hapū and iwi claims will be extinguished without
being addressed and the iwi corporate bodies will become advisors to or servants of the
Crown. The Deeds also show that few if any of the hapū’s purposes will be achieved.
Before detailing how these deeds purport to achieve this, some background information is
necessary on the constitutional documents which underpin treaty claims, He Whakaputanga
o te Rangatiratanga o Nu Tireni and Te Tiriti o Waitangi. The United Nations Declaration on
the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is also relevant as it provides a blueprint for the
implementation of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
He Whakaputanga o te Rangatiratanga o Nu Tireni – the 1835 declaration of hapū
The first constitutional document drawn up for this country was the 1835 He
Whakaputanga o te Rangatiratanga o Nu Tireni. That document, which was formally
acknowledged by the British Crown, is a declaration that mana, including sovereignty, for
each part of this country lies solely and completely with the rangatira of the hapū of each of
those parts. It also declares that those rangatira will never give over law-making power to
any other person/s. Several rangatira of hapū of Te Hiku o te Ika signed He Whakaputanga
and the British relied on it as the basis from which to negotiate Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
Te Tiriti o Waitangi – the treaty entered into between hapū and the British Crown
The treaty signed at Waitangi in 1840 is known as Te Tiriti o Waitangi. It is written in Māori
and it was the only document that was discussed and signed by the rangatira of the hapū of
Te Hiku o Te Ika and by the representative of the British Crown. Other than confirming He
Whakaputanga and recognising the sovereignty or tino rangatiratanga of the hapū, the main
purpose of that treaty is to allow the Queen of England to take responsibility for and to
control her lawless Pākehā citizens who had or were coming to this country. It also
guaranteed that in exchange for Māori protection of Pākehā immigrants, Māori would have
all the rights and privileges of British citizens.
The English language document that was not signed
An English language document, often referred to as the Treaty of Waitangi, that has been
referred to in various government pronouncements and legislation, was not discussed with
or agreed to by rangatira of Te Hiku o te Ika, or any other rangatira in the country in 1840. It
wasn’t signed at Waitangi and it has no legitimate status. That document claims that the
rangatira ceded sovereignty and hence ultimate control of themselves, all their lands and all
their other resources to the British Crown and all hapū agreed to become subject to Pākehā
rule. That did not happen. And because this document was not the one agreed to or signed
at Waitangi or in Te Hiku o Te Ika, any attempt to claim power, authority or control based on
it is fraudulent. Furthermore, any attempt to now retrospectively legitimise this document is
a violation of the treaty that was agreed to.
The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples 2007 (UNDRIP)
The third document that is relevant to the treaty claims process is UNDRIP. Hapū and iwi
representatives played an active role in drafting this document over more than twenty years
in the United Nations. It sets out what the fundamental human rights of indigenous peoples
are and how states must act to ensure those rights are protected and upheld. Many of its 46
articles are directly relevant to the treaty claims process in New Zealand. The New Zealand
government signed up to UNDRIP in 2010.
On He Whakaputanga, each of the Deeds either misrepresents the 1835 declaration or is
effectively silent on it. The deed for Te Aupōuri at paragraph 3.8 mentions “the Declaration
of Independence (He Whakaputanga)” being signed by Te Māhia of Te Aupōuri and Te
Morenga of Te Rarawa but says nothing about what that document is about. The deed for
Ngāi Takoto does not mention He Whakaputanga at all. Te Rarawa’s mentions He
Whakaputanga but provides an incorrect interpretation of both its purpose and intent.
At paragraph 2.8 the deed for Te Rarawa states “Te Rarawa maintain the intention of He
Whakaputanga was to establish a confederacy to lead the iwi in a new relationship with the
British Crown.” This is incorrect. He Whakaminenga, the group of rangatira named in He
Whakaputanga, was a gathering of rangatira that had been meeting to debate issues for
many years before He Whakaputanga was signed. Furthermore, He Whakaputanga is a
declaration of mana, which includes sovereignty, of the rangatira of the hapū. Its title in
Māori, He Whakaputanga o te Rangatiratanga o Nu Tireni, translates as “a declaration of the
ultimate power and authority/sovereignty of New Zealand”. Mana and sovereignty are
much more than the notion of ‘independence’ referred to in the English version of this
declaration. There is no reference to hapū sovereignty in the deed for Te Rarawa. Further it
states “The signatories...asked the British King for protection against intrusion of others
powers.” There is no such statement in He Whakaputanga.
As such, none of the Deeds provides an accurate explanation of He Whakaputanga o te
Rangatiratanga o Nu Tireni as the primary constitutional document for this country. Neither
do any of them refer to the fact that He Whakaputanga is the declaration that sovereignty
of New Zealand will always remain with the rangatira of the hapū. Neither do they mention
that the King of England recognised He Whakaputanga and relied on it to enter into Te Tiriti
o Waitangi. And, more importantly, there is no reference to Ngāpuhi’s current claim on this,
Wai 1040, and no reference to any future discussions between these iwi and the Crown on
On Te Tiriti o Waitangi, each of these Deeds speaks of Te Tiriti o Waitangi but always speaks
of it in conjunction with the English language Treaty of Waitangi, frequently using the
phrase “Te Tiriti o Waitangi/The Treaty of Waitangi” as if they are somehow linked or even
the same document. These two documents are very different with different purposes and
intents. The only thing they have in common is that they were drafted at about the same
time. Only Te Tiriti o Waitangi was signed by the ancestors of Te Rarawa, Te Aupōuri and
Ngāi Takoto. The Treaty of Waitangi was a document manufactured by British Crown agents
to alienate and disenfranchise Māori. At no point in the history of Te Rarawa, Te Aupōuri
and Ngāi Takoto did rangatira of these iwi ever sign this Treaty of Waitangi. As such it should
not be mentioned at all in these Deeds of Settlement or in any resulting legislation. Yet the
deeds refer to it repeatedly, falsely claiming it as the source of British law and authority in
For example, the deed for Te Rarawa at 1.36 and 2.15, and the deed for Te Aupōuri at 3.8,
both refer to signing “Te Tiriti o Waitangi/The Treaty of Waitangi”. Ngāi Takoto’s says at 1.8
that “Awarau...signed the Treaty of Waitangi” and two paragraphs later at 1.10, that
Matenga Paerata...signed...Te Tiriti”. Then at 2.12 “Ngāi Takoto rangatira...signed the Treaty
of Waitangi...”. Once again, no-one who was at the Hiku o te Ika signings ever signed The
Treaty of Waitangi. They only ever signed Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
The deed for Te Rarawa at 2.9 states, “In 1839, the British government authorised Captain
William Hobson, ‘to treat with the Aborigines of New Zealand for the recognition of Her
Majesty’s sovereign authority over the whole or any part of those islands which they may be
willing to place under Her Majesty’s dominion.’” Nowhere does Te Rarawa’s deed say that
Hobson never achieved this. Instead the Deed assumes at paragraph 2.11 and then
throughout the whole document “the imposition of British law and authority”. For this
imposition to have effect, rangatira would have to have ceded their own law and authority
and submitted to a foreign law and authority. They did not do this in 1840. And yet some
one hundred and seventy two years later it appears that some of their descendants may be
doing so. If the corporate body for Te Rarawa is now accepting “the imposition of British law
and authority” under “Her Majesty’s sovereign authority”, as this Deed says it does, then
this “settlement” has required them to cede the body’s mana and tino rangatiratanga.
Te Tiriti did not allow for the imposition of anything British on the hapū. British law and
authority was for lawless British immigrants, not for hapū. Hapū already had their own law
and authority and it had been in place for many centuries. They were not about to replace it
with something they knew little or nothing about. And in a country where Māori numbered
many hundreds of thousands and Pākehā a mere 2000, there was absolutely no reason to
even contemplate it. Yet this paragraph fraudulently asserts that the rangatira of the hapū
agreed to subject themselves to British law and authority. To do that they would have to
have given up their mana and tino rangatiratanga, including their sovereignty. Such a
serious violation of the fundamental principles of hapū existence is both logically and
practically impossible. No matter what the few Pākehā who were here in 1840 were hoping
for, it did not happen. The deed for Te Rarawa is seriously wrong to imply that it did and to
accept the false statement that Te Rarawa ancestors ceded their mana and tino
rangatiratanga when in fact they did the opposite and confirmed it.
In respect of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, all the
deeds are completely silent, containing no reference at all to this fundamentally important
international declaration. This is because when the iwi corporate bodies tried to insist that it
be referenced in the deeds, they each received notification from the government that it
would not allow mention of it in the deeds.
This is a matter for the United Nations to address. It monitors the compliance of states who
become signatories to international instruments such as UNDRIP. New Zealand, along with
the other English-speaking settler states of Canada, Australia and the USA, drew strong
criticism from the United Nations for opposing UNDRIP when it was overhwelmingly
supported by 143 states in 2007. Once Canada and Australia adopted it and the USA
indicated it intended to do so, international pressure effectively shamed New Zealand into
doing the same in 2010. Representatives of hapū and iwi will be formally notifying the
United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues of this violation by a signatory at its
meeting in May this year. The New Zealand government will have to account to the United
Nations for its refusal to comply with UNDRIP.
Unextinguished native/customary title
In respect of unextinguished native title, the Ngāi Takoto deed at paragraph 2.14 states “The
Crown took the view that it held radical title to all land in New Zealand”, that is, that no-one
could own land in New Zealand except where the Crown said they could. No, that view is
simply wrong. Given that sovereignty remained with the hapū and the Crown was delegated
a much lesser authority in respect of Pākehā only, it had no basis, legitimate or imagined, to
assign itself anything in respect of lands belonging to hapū. Radical title, or underlying
ownership has and always will lie with the hapū. That is clearly set out in He Whakaputanga.
As the Waitangi Tribunal rightly pointed out on page 6 of its Muriwhenua Land Report, the
Crown could not claim radical title because it was already spoken for.
Yet paragraph 2.14 of the Ngāi Takoto deed goes on to say “Crown title was burdened by
any customary title, except where that customary title had been extinguished through pre-
Treaty transactions.” And at paragraph 3.12 of the Te Aupōuri deed “...the Crown could
retain the balance of land...on the basis that the original transaction extinguished customary
title.” Once again, no, these statements are simply wrong. The Waitangi Tribunal makes it
very clear that the pre-Treaty transactions and the pre-1865 Crown seizures or “purchases”
conveyed temporary use rights only. The Tribunal found that neither they nor any land
transaction conducted up to 1865 alienated the lands. Instead, at page seven of their Report
they said “there is lack of clear evidence concerning the extinguishment of native title”.
Is mana and tino rangatiratanga/sovereignty nevertheless retained in practical terms in
The answer to this fundamentally important question in respect of these deeds is a clear
“No”. For if the corporate bodies for Te Rarawa, Te Aupōuri and Ngāi Takoto who signed up
to these deeds have been able to retain any of their mana and tino rangatiratanga, they
would hold clear decision-making authority and power, for example, in respect of the areas
covered for the three bodies jointly in the deeds. The main areas covered in each of the
three deeds are Te Oneroa-a-Tōhē (Ninety Mile beach), lands administered by the
Department of Conservation and government services. Sections covering these matters are
the same for each deed.
There is no doubt that Te Oneroa-a-Tōhē, 72 miles of beach that is of immeasurable
importance to the identity and existence of the whānau, hapū and iwi of Te Hiku o Te Ika, is
an extensive area over which mana and rangatiratanga must be properly exercised. Given
that the Supreme Court found that iwi owned it, then the deeds should set out the full
authority and power of the iwi there and stipulate the support role that the Crown may
have if it wishes to maintain public access to the beach.
At paragraph 5.13 of the deeds for Te Rarawa and Ngāi Takoto, and 6.13 of the deed for Te
Aupōuri, Te Oneroa-a-Tōhē Board is established to, at paragraph 5.15 (6.15 for Te Aupōuri),
“provide governance and direction in order to protect and enhance the environmental,
economic, social, spiritual and cultural well-being of Te Oneroa-a-Tōhē for present and
future generations.” However it is not a stand alone body acting under the authority of the
iwi corporate bodies. Instead, at paragraph 5.16 (6.16), it is “deemed to be a joint
committee of the Northland Regional Council and the Far North District Council”. At
paragraph 5.21.2 (6.21.2) its specific function is to “engage with, seek advice from and
provide advice to the Northland Regional Council, the Far North District Council and other
beach management agencies regarding the health and well-being of Te Oneroa-ā-Tōhē”. At
paragraph 5.28 (6.28), half its membership is appointed by the iwi corporate bodies, and
half by the Northland Regional Council and Far North District Council. At paragraph 5.40
(6.40) the iwi members appoint the chair. At paragraph 5.27 (6.27) rather than being
governed by tikanga, “...the procedures of the Board are governed by...the Local
Government Act 2002, Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and
Local Authorities (Members Interests) Act 1968”.
In other words this is a Pākehā board which is a committee of the Far North District Council
and the Northland Regional Council and which happens to have a chair and some
representatives selected by the iwi corporate bodies as members. So in order to settle their
Treaty claims, the corporate bodies for Te Rarawa, Te Aupōuri and Ngāi Takoto have agreed
to cede their power, authority and control of their beach, which the Pākehā courts held to
be theirs, to the Northland Regional Council and the Far North District Council. They have in
return agreed to take an advisory role through a committee of the councils.
Lands Currently administered by the Department of Conservation
Sections 7 of the deeds for Te Rarawa and Te Aupōuri and section 6 of the deed for Ngāi
Takoto set out the role these iwi corporate bodies will play in respect of their lands currently
administered by the Department of Conservation. Although the deeds acknowledge at
paragraph 7.4 (6.4) that all the iwi bodies have insisted that all these lands be vested in
them pursuant to the findings of the Waitangi Tribunal, the deeds make it clear that that will
not happen. Instead title to the lands will be confirmed as being owned by the Crown
instead of the whānau and hapū. In other words Te Rarawa, Te Aupōuri and Ngāi Takoto
corporate bodies are gifting these lands to the Crown – and for no recompense. And in
exchange for those lands they will be able to participate in yet another government
appointed advisory committee to the New Zealand Conservation Authority (which in turn
advises the Minister of Conservation) called Te Hiku o Te Ika Conservation Board. The Board
will have no decision-making powers in respect of these lands.
At paragraph 7.14 (6.14) the role of the Board is that of a Conservation Board, that is, to
advise and make recommendations to the Department of Conservation and the New
Zealand Conservation Authority. Paragraphs 7.17 (6.17) set out that while the iwi corporate
bodies nominate half (one member each) of the Board’s members, it is the Minister of
Conservation who will appoint all the members of the Board, including the chair and half of
the Board which he alone will nominate. However at paragraphs 7.18.2 (6.18.2) the Minister
will not appoint those nominated by iwi unless he/she approves of them. At paragraphs 7.19
and 7.20 (6.19 and 6.20) the Minister can also remove iwi nominated members he/she has
appointed if she/he is concerned about the member. At paragraphs 7.21 (6.21), if iwi are
concerned about an iwi-nominated member, they can only request that the Minister
remove them. The Minister (usually as advised by Department of Conservation staff)
decides who remains and who is removed.
At paragraphs 7.25 and 7.26 (6.25 and 6.26) the Board acts and makes decisions not
according to tikanga but, instead, according to the Conservation Act and Pākehā law.
At paragraphs 7.26 to 7.72 (6.26 to 7.72) the Board’s tasks in respect of “Te Hiku o te Ika
Conservation Management Strategy” are set out. Essentially the Department of
Conservation drafts the Conservation Management Strategy in accordance with the
Conservation Act, setting out how it considers all the lands it administers should be
managed. It consults with the Board first and then the Board advises the Department on
the draft plan. At paragraph 7.49 (6.49) it is the New Zealand Conservation Authority that
approves the Strategy, not the Board. As such the iwi corporate bodies have no decision-
making powers in respect of their lands administered by the Department. All the Deeds
allow them to do is to provide advice to the Department of Conservation.
At paragraphs 7.63 to 7.93 (6.63 to 6.93) are details of a decision-making framework within
which the Department may choose to include advice from the iwi corporate bodies.
However in the final analysis it is the Department that makes all the decisions. At
paragraphs 7.95 to 7.105 (6.95 to 6.105) details for a jointly agreed plan for customary take
of flora and fauna are set out. However at paragraph 7.103 (6.103) the Director-General of
Conservation may unilaterally suspend the plan if he is not satisfied with it.
In respect of wāhi tapu on these lands, including Te Rerenga Wairua, paragraphs 7.106 to
7.128 (6.106 to 6.128) set out that rather than the iwi corporate body having exclusive
power and authority over the sacred sites of whānau and hapū, all decisions must have the
agreement of DoC.
Thus the forty pages of the deeds taken up with describing the role that the corporate
bodies of Te Aupōuri, Te Rarawa and Ngāi Takoto will have in respect of lands administered
by the Department of Conservation can be summarised as gifting all those whānau, hapū
and iwi lands to the Crown, and, in the final analysis, confirming the status quo; that is, that
all decision-making rests with the Director-General (as advised by the staff of the Kaitāia
office of the Department of Conservation) and the Minister of Conservation. Iwi corporate
bodies will be permitted to provide more advice than officials have allowed them to give in
the past but neither the Department nor the Minister is bound to heed any of that advice.
There is little difference between that and the existing situation. Whānau and hapū who are
not part of the corporate iwi body and have not ceded their mana and rangatiratanga will
not accede to their land being gifted without their authority and will continue to repossess it
as and how they see fit.
For many decades now, government services purportedly delivered to benefit whānau and
hapū have been a dismal failure. There have been numerous calls since the early 1980s for
government to transfer their ever-diminishing contributions towards whānau and hapū
welfare to Māori so that we can help ourselves. Government departments and their
ministers have always staunchly refused to transfer anything other than totally inadequate
token gestures despite overwhelming and irrefutable evidence that government controlled
social services perpetuate and exacerbate the dire circumstances that so many whānau and
hapū find themselves in. The Deeds of Settlement for Te Aupōuri, Te Rarawa and Ngāi
Takoto, in a attempt to address this situation, end up not only perpetuating it but allowing
blame for the systemic malfunction in government service departments to be shared by the
corporate bodies for those iwi.
Sections 8 of the deeds for Te Rarawa and Te Aupōuri and section 7 of Ngāi Takoto’s deed
set out how the corporate bodies for the iwi will provide advice to the following
Ministry of Social Development; Ministry of Education/Tertiary Education Commission;
Ministry of Justice; Ministry of Economic Development; Department of Labour; Department
of Internal Affairs; Te Puni Kōkiri; Department of Building and Housing; Statistics New
Advice will be provided by staff of the iwi corporate bodies and government officials to
meetings to be held between the iwi corporate bodies and various local, regional and
national government officials for each of these government departments. There will be
several meetings for each department each year. Advice will take the form of written
reports and papers presented in the meetings. The meetings and reporting will be
monitored and controlled by the Ministry of Social Development. Despite the huge effort
and time iwi corporate bodies will put into this process, final decision-making on all matters
remains with Ministers, not with the iwi corporate bodies.
These sections of the deeds effectively set up a large bureaucracy within each of the iwi
corporate bodies which mirror government service departments. This aspect of these
corporate bodies, by its sheer size, will almost certainly dominate the operations of those
bodies. However it is not clear in the deeds whether any resources and on-going funding will
be provided by the Crown to set up and maintain this bureaucracy or whether the iwi
corporate bodies must find that themselves, effectively working voluntarily for government
departments. Whatever the source of that funding, it is clear that the Crown envisages
taking control of the three iwi corporate bodies by transforming them into government
service agencies controlled by the Ministry of Social Development.
Constant references throughout the deeds to British Crown supremacy and dominance over
the corporate bodies of Te Rarawa, Te Aupōuri and Ngāi Takoto amounts to an
incomprehensible denial of the mana and rangatiratanga of those same corporate entities.
Thus it appears that some of the descendants of the ancestors who signed Te Tiriti to
confirm that mana and tino rangatiratanga have now agreed to cede it to the British Crown.
And in doing so they purport to gift huge tracts of land belonging to whānau and hapū to
the Crown. The iwi corporate bodies are not mana whenua of those lands and have no
authority whatsoever to give away lands that are not theirs.
Assurances provided in ratification hui and in press releases that Wai 1040 will address this
are not borne out in the Deeds. They are not conditional on the outcome of Wai 1040.
Instead they signal that the settlements as legislated are final in respect of all claims listed
including the very broad and all encompassing Wai 22 and Wai 45 as they apply to Te
Rarawa, Te Aupōuri and Ngāi Takoto.
The Deeds effectively reduce the iwi corporate bodies to something less than mere tenants
on their ancestors’ lands and servants to government bureaucrats, subject to the whim and
will of the British Crown as represented in her Pākehā parliament in New Zealand. The
report of the Waitangi Tribunal for Muriwhenua confirmed that while British immigrants
have always sought to achieve this, it is a gross breach of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. It is also illegal
until such time as legislation permitting it is enacted. The legislation that will be drawn up
using these deeds will ensure that this illegal and disgraceful behaviour on the part of the
Crown will be covered by a veneer of legality. Conditions imposed throughout the deeds
confirm that this is the Crown’s intent. However it is also clear from a number of hui
convened recently throughout Te Hiku o Te Ika that there are many whānau and hapū of
these iwi who have refused to cede lands and their mana and tino rangatiratanga and are
vehemently opposed to the Deeds of Settlement. As such they cannot be bound by the
resultant legislation or by the iwi corporate bodies. However they will be bound to fight
Professor Margaret Mutu
22 February 2012