22 June 2026
REF: OIA
88552
Mark
By email: [FYI request #34683 email]
Tēnā koe
Request for Official Information: information relating to Crown consideration of Wai 1896
in mandating and Treaty settlement processes
Thank you for your correspondence of 11 May 2026 requesting the following information under
the Official Information Act 1982 (the
Act):
“the records, assessments, analyses, correspondence and decision-making documents relating to
Crown consideration of WAI 1896 in relation to overlapping settlement negotiations, mandate
recognition processes, and territorial interests identified within the Statement of Claim.”
On 27 May the timeframe for responding to your request was extended to 22 June under
section 15(a) of the Act.
Response to your request
Please find attached at
Appendix One a table of documents and information released in
response to your request.
Some of this information has been withheld in part under the following sections of the Act:
• 9(2)(a) – to protect the privacy of a natural persons, including the deceased;
• 18(d) – information is already publicly available; and
• out of scope.
Documents 15 and 16 in the table of documents are not provided as they are publicly available
on the Te Tari Whakatau webs
ite at Tuhoronuku Deed of Mandate and
Ngapuhi-Terms-of-
Negotiation-20-May-2015.pdf.
Your request was considered for proactive release in line with The Te Tari Whakatau Official
Information Act 1982 proactive release policy. Our assessment determined your request falls
within the scope for proactive release as its contents are of interest to the wider public.
P +64 4 494 9800
E [email address]
w Whakatau.govt.nz
Our response to your request will be published in the next 20 days at
Te Tari Whakatau -
Official Information Act responses with your personal information removed.
Our response to your request will be published in the next 20 days at Te Tari Whakatau -
Official Information Act responses with your personal information removed.
You have the right under section 28(3) to seek an investigation and review by the Ombudsman
of this decision. Information about this process is available at
www.ombudsman.parliament.nz
or phone 0800 802 602.
Should you have any queries or require further information, please contact Sonya Wynne,
Senior Analyst,
at [email address].
Nāku noa, nā
Leah Campbell
Director
2
Appendix One: Table of Documents and Information for release
Document
Date
Document description
Extent of
Reason for
Page
number
information
withholding
number (s)
released
information
1.
14 December
Letter from AJ Packington-Hall to Minister for Treaty of
Released in part
9(s)(a)
1 – 6
2008-24
Waitangi Negotiations, 09 November 2009, attaching: -
November 2009
• Letter from AJ Packington-Hall to Mr Sonny Tau, 21
October 2009
• Power of Attorney from Denis Hanley to AJ
Packington-Hall, 14 December 2008
Letter from Private Secretary for Minister for Treaty of
Waitangi Negotiations to AJ Packington-Hall, 24 November
2009
2.
17 November 2009 Cover email re Ministerial letter (MIN 2009 24902)
Released in full
7
3.
17 November 2009 Attachment - letter MIN 2009 24902 (A. J. Packington-Hall)
Released in full
8
[unsigned]
4.
04 June 2010
G. Sharrock, memorandum of counsel relating to an application Released in full
9 – 11
by Gregg McDonald to the Waitangi Tribunal on behalf of Wai
532
5.
09 November 2011 G Sharrock, Memorandum of Counsel supporting application Released in full
12 - 19
for urgent hearing by Michael Beazley and others on behalf of
Nga Uri o Maki nui (Wai 2181)
3
Document
Date
Document description
Extent of
Reason for
Page
number
information
withholding
number (s)
released
information
6.
08 December 2011
Letter to A.J. Packington-Hall [unsigned]
Released in full
20
7.
14 June 2011
Table – analytical table of Wai claims (pages)
Released in part
Out of scope
21-25
8.
05 July 2013
Ngāpuhi claims settled in full letters FINAL - Letter to Denis Released in full
26 – 28
Hanley
9.
31 July 2013
Letter to Denis Hanley resent
Released in part
9(2)(a)
29 – 31
10.
19 July 2013 – 05
Te Puni Kokiri – Office of Treaty Settlements email chain with Released in part
9(2)(a)
32 – 33
August 2013
filenote - Tuhoronuku and Wai 1896
11.
08 August 2013
1063 - Submission of AJ Packington Hall on behalf of Denis Released in full
34 – 35
Patrick Hanley in the matter of Waitangi Treaty Claim Wai 1896
12.
20 September
Table of non-template submissions - #67 – Tony Pakington
Released in part
9(2)(a)
36 – 37
2013
Hall
Out of scope
13.
22 October 2013
Table of submissions – historical elements
Released in part
Out of scope
38 – 39
14.
03 December 2013
Table of submitters requiring individual response re.
Released in part
9(2)(a)
40
Tūhoronuku mandate
Out of scope
4
Document
Date
Document description
Extent of
Reason for
Page
number
information
withholding
number (s)
released
information
15.
14 February 2014
Te Rōpū o Tūhoronuku Deed of Mandate and appendices
Not released
18(d) – publicly
-
available
16.
20 May 2015
Te Rōpū o Tūhoronuku Terms of Negotiation
Not released
18(d) – publicly
-
available
17.
14 June 2017
Claimant definition database (groups in negotiation or pre-
Released in part
Out of scope
41 – 44
negotiation)
18.
02 March 2026
Email re Wai 1896 – request for clarification of settlement
Released in part
Out of scope
45 – 46
pathway
9(2)(a)
19.
11 March 2026
Email re Wai 1896 - request for clarification of settlement
Released in part
Out of scope
47 – 48
pathway
9(2)(a)
20.
11 March 2026
Te Tari Whakatau summary document - Eruera Maihi Patuone Released in full
49 – 50
group associations
21.
24 March 2026
Email 24 March 2026 re Wai 1896: Non-Extinguishment and
Released in part
Out of scope
51 – 54
Discrete Settlement Request
9(2)(a)
22.
24 March 2026
Email re Wai 1896 - request for clarification of settlement
Released in full
55
pathway
23.
01 April 2026
Letter Te Tari Whakatau to Mark Thomson re Wai 1896
Released in part
9(2)(a)
56 – 58
5
link to page 7
Document
Date
Document description
Extent of
Reason for
Page
number
information
withholding
number (s)
released
information
24.
1 April – 18 June
Emails Mark Thomson – Te Tari Whakatau re Wai 1896
Released in part
9(2)(a)
59 – 66
2026
25.
02 April 2026
Te Tari Whakatau summary document - Wai 1896 documents
Released in full
67 – 72
in the Wai 1040 Record of Inquiry
26.
16 – 18 June 2026
Emails Mark Thomson re Wai 1896
Released in part
9(2)(a)
73 – 75
Reasons for withholding under section 9 of the Official Information Act 1982i
s 9(2)(a) – protect the privacy of natural persons, including the deceased.
s 9(2)(f) – maintain the constitutional conventions which protect:
s 9(2)(b) – protect information that would:
(i) –
communications by or with the Sovereign or their
representative; or
(i) – disclose a trade secret;
(ii) –
collective and individual ministerial responsibility; or
(ii) – unreasonably prejudice commercial position of subject.
(iii) –
the political neutrality of officials; or
s 9(2)(ba) – protect information where making it available would:
(iv) –
the confidentiality of advice tendered by Ministers and Crown
(i) – prejudice the supply of similar information; or
officials.
(ii) – likely otherwise damage the public interest.
s 9(2)(g) – maintain the effective conduct of public affairs through:
s 9(2)(c) – prejudice to measures protecting health or safety of the public.
(i) – the free and frank expression of opinions;
s 9(2)(d) – prejudice to substantial economic interests of New Zealand.
(ii) – the protection from improper pressure or harassment.
6
s 9(2)(e) – prejudice to measures that prevent or mitigate material loss to
s 9(2)(h) – maintain legal professional privilege.
members of the public.
s 9(2)(i) – enable the Crown holding the information to carry out commercial
activities.
s 9(2)(j) – negotiations sensitive.
s 9(2)(k) – prevent the disclosure of information for improper gain or
advantage.
Reasons for refusing information under section 18 of the Official Information Act 1982i
s 18(a) – good reasons by virtue of s 6, 7 or 9 of the Act:
s 18(e) – the information requested does not exist, or cannot be found:
s 18(b) – the department or Minister or organisation neither confirms nor
s 18(f) – the information cannot be made available without substantial
denies the existence or non-existence of the information:
collation or research:
s 18(c) – making the information available would –
s 18(g) – the information is not held by the department or Minister of the
Crown or organisation, and the person dealing with the request has no
(iii) – be contrary to a specified enactment; or
grounds for believing that it is:
(iv) – constitute contempt of court or the House of Representatives:
(i) – held by another department, Minister of the Crown or
s 18(d) – the information is, or will soon be, publicly available:
organisation, or by a local authority; or
s 18(da) – the request is made by a defendant or person acting on behalf of
(ii) – connected more closely with the functions of another
a defendant and is –
department or Minister of the Crown or organisation or local
authority:
(v) – information that could be sought under the Criminal
Disclosures Act 2008; or
s 18(h) – the request is frivolous or vexatious or the information requested
is trivial.
(vi) – information that could be sought under that Act and that has
been disclosed or withheld under that Act:
i Please see the Official Information Act 1982 for full version of sections 9 and 18 of the Act.
7
3
4
5
6
Sender: John Hutton
Date: 17/11/2009 7:10:00 p.m.
Document 2
Subject: Ministerial - FINAL
Message Source: Incoming
Attachment Count: 2
Attachment #1: TEXT.htm
Attachment #2: MIN 2009 24902 (A. J. Packington-Hall).doc
Recipient Count: 1
Recipient: Cooke, Simon
Message Class: GW.MESSAGE.MAIL
Message Body:
Hi Simon,
the ministerial is on your table ready to go out Wednesday morning, 28th. If there are any other further issues with it,
attached is the FINAL electronic. (Maureen had further changes since last email).
Please check the paperwork inside - give date gone, etc.
Much appreciated.
Cheers,
John.
END OF ITEM ##############################################
7
Document 3
A. J. Packington-Hall
78a Bently Ave
Glefield
North hore City
AUCKLAND 0629
Tēnā koe
Thank you for your letter of 19 October 2009, where you seek advice on whether Wai
1896 qualifies under Crown policy to be negotiated as a single claim.
The Crown strongly prefers to negotiate Treaty settlements with large natural groupings,
rather than with individual hapū or whānau within a tribe. There are good reasons for this:
negotiations are easier to work through with larger groups, overlapping interests are better
dealt with, and the costs to all parties are reduced. Accordingly, the Crown would want to
negotiate the settlement of Wai 1896 alongside any claims that derive from the historical
interests of the tupuna Patuone, and other claims of the hapū and iwi to which Patuone and
his descendants affiliate.
Before such negotiations could take place, an organisation would need to demonstrate it
has the support of those who would benefit from the settlement of those claims. As I
understand it, the tupuna Patuone was of Ngāpuhi descent. You may be aware that Te
Rünanga-a-Iwi o Ngāpuhi has been leading a consultation process to generate discussion
among Ngāpuhi about how they wish to be represented in Treaty settlement negotiations
with the Crown. It may be useful for you to contact the Rünanga and participate in those
discussions. The Crown has made no predetermination as to who should hold a mandate
on behalf of Ngāpuhi. Ultimately it is for the people of Ngāpuhi to decide how they wish to
be represented and when they wish to enter Treaty settlement negotiations with the Crown.
I have also enclosed a copy of “Ka tika ā muri, ka tika ā mua: Healing the past, building a
future”. You may find it helpful to read this guide for further information on Treaty settlement
negotiations.
Nāku noa, nā
Hon Christopher Finlayson
Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations
8
Document 4
!"# $
%$&#' ("# $
'" )*# #&$&$ #
+"*"'# " " ",#
+","" *"!
+" # -* -#$* &
*". " &*#
'#(" "#
*"! -*"" "
*"%./ # !#' "#
. 01. 223. 1. 3.
. 44. 103. 20.
1.
! " # #
$% $
&&#%
$%
' () *+*
9
Document 5
BEFORE THE WAITANGI TRIBUNAL
OF NEW ZEALAND
WAI 121, 654, 884,914,
1129, 1055, 1313, 1460,
1896, 1941, 1870, 2191,
and WAI 2309.
IN THE MATTER OF
THE TREATY OF
WAITANGI ACT 1975
AND
IN THE MATTER OF
An application for
urgency by William
Kapea and Michael
John Beazley on
behalf of themselves
and Nga Uri o Maki-
nui
AND
CLAIMS BY MARAMA
STEAD BAKER,GILBERT
PARKER , HOHEPA KINGI,
NAOMI EPIHA, RHODA
MAHANGA,ELIZABETH
WARREN, KINGI TAURUA
FOR AND ON BEHALF OF
WHANAU
MEMORANDUM OF COUNSEL SUPPORTING APPLICATION
FOR URGENT HEARING BY MICHAEL BEAZLEY &OTHERS
ON BEHALF OF NGA URI O MAKI NUI
9 November 2011
RightLaw
Barristers and Solicitors
Gerald Sharrock BSc LlB, Principal
11 Kaihu Street Northcote, Auckland 0627
phone +64 09 889 4468 mobile +64 21 303923
gsharrock@rig htlaw.co.nz www.rig htlaw.co.nz
12
MAY IT PLEASE THE TRIBUNAL
Background
1. Counsel has received instructions from the
claimants that they have an interest in the
application for urgency. Accordingly counsel
respectfully seeks the Tribunal’s leave to have
the claimants added as a party with an interest
in the urgency application and to have this
document filed on the Wai 2181 Record.
2. Claimants were party to the prior Wai 532
application and repeat the issues raised in that
proceedings
3. There will be no prejudice to any other party
should the leave sought be granted.
4. The tragedy of this situation is that history is
repeating itself.
5. The very basis of Crown purchase under the
Mahurangi Purchase was a case where the
Crown having failed to make proper inquiry
purchased from those who did not control all or
even a majority of the land interests. The
Crown engaged with them because they were
convenient and friendly.
13
6. The Crown has now chosen to reward a very
small whanau/hapu group with substantial cash
settlement which is then mainly converted into
ownership of the most substantial Crown forest
in the Mahurangi.
7. This process if allowed to continue will cause
permanent irremedial damage to other
claimants, and other hapu.
Diversity and Proportionality
8. It must be remembered that Mahurangi has a
enormous number of hapu from very diverse
iwi origins, reflecting the transit nature of the
territory, as a way station between the far north,
and points south including the isthmus,
Hauraki, Waikato, and beyond.
9. Some of the more salient hapu include:
Ngati Paoa
Ngati Rahiri
Ngai Tawake
Teparawhau
Te Uri o Hua
14
Te Uri o Hau
Te Taou
Ngati Rongo
Nga Iwi
Nga Oho
Ngai Tahuhu
Ngati Whatua
Waiohua
10. These represent hapu from a wide range of
confederations such as
Kawerau
Ngati whatua
Nga Puhi
Tainui
Hauraki
11. Few points in the country offer such tribal
diversity. Few places require such care in
determining settlement.
15
12. To precipate a settlement for a minor
whanau/hapu for substantial crown asset
without full inquiry, is to the gross prejudice of
other hapu unless the Crown is willing to accept
that settlement for Mahurangi is likely tp be
proportionate to the population of Ngati
Manuhiri as compared to the population of
other hapu. If the approximate 200 of this
group are to be settled with nine million dollars
can we havea commitment that 30,000 Nga
Puhi in the area will receive proportionate
largesse.
Mandate Deficiencies
13. Roll of Electors
The efficacy of the roll has been challenged.
Some have been enrolled that should not.
Others have either been excluded or have
chosen not to be included because they found
the Roll to be deficient. Definition of class of
enrolleees is suspect. Many of the roll are
recognised as having different affilliations and
their connections were remote.
14. Mechanism of voting process
16
There have been misgivings about the process of
recognising attendees at meetings, their
publication, and the recording of the true intent
of the meeting.
15. Conflict of Interest
Some of the principals have serious conflicts
involving their positions over time in the Ngati
Wai Trust Board.
16. Failure to acknowledge separation
The Haronga decision clearly denotes the rights for
claimants to separate themselves from the
settlement process. The Crown and the settling
organisation has failed to acknowledge this.
Irrevo
cable Prejudice Arising from Allocation
of Assets
17. The Crown in allocating one of the few and
certainly the only substantial forest in the
Mahurangi to a whanau/hapu which is one of
the smaller in the region. They are not tangita
whenua. Their interests can at best be
described as parallel to other hapu interests.
17
18. This act effectively denies the other hapu the
ability to retrieve a substantial forest. There is
no comparable alternative available for other
claimants. It is contrary to comparative
interests.
19. The effect is to change the tribal landscape by
providing one of the Crown's friends with
disproportionate enrichment. This will lead to
distortion in tribal affilliations. It creates an
environment
where
there
are
financial
advantages to associating with the Crown's
friends and allies.
20. Loss of State Forest potentially eliminates the
ability to receive funding from CFRT for the
Mahurangi district. This would be a gross
irrevocable prejudice to hearing of our claims in
the hearing District.
21. Land is one of the few pieces of Crown land
available for return in the Mahurangi. Its
allocation to a minor whanau/hapu of a
substantial piece of land with a considerable
revenue earning potential.
Conclusion
18
22. In an area of such hapu and iwi diversity to
place such a material Crown asset into the
hands of a small hapu/whanau grossly distorts
the settlement process to the irrevocable
prejudice of other claimants. It is more the
egregious when the whanau/hapu is deeply
divided on the process.
23. Fair and intelligent consent should be the
basis for settlement that especially when there
are so many competing/parallel interests of
diverse hapu and iwi origins a hearing is the
only way to determine the relative rights of
the party. Settlement cannot arise from the
Crown choosing the champions it wants to
settle with to the prejudice and preclusion of
others.
24. Counsel
wishes
to
make
further
submissions viva voce
Dated this 9th Day of November 2011
____________________________________________
Counsel Acting Gerald Sharrock
To: The Registrar of the Waitangi Tribunal
To: Counsel for the Crown
To: Counsel for claimants
19
Document 6
8 December 2011
A J Packington-Hall
Unit 4
27-31 Greendale Crescent
Northcote
Auckland
Tënä koe
Re: Te Rōpu o Tūhoronuku mandate process
Thank you for your letter of 27 September 2011 concerning the Tūhoronuku Te Rōpū o
Tūhoronuku (Tūhoronuku) mandate process on behalf of Mr Denis Hanley. Please accept my
apologies for the delay in responding to you. I understand you have a number of concerns
about the Tūhoronuku deed of mandate process and a strong desire to ensure your
grievances are heard through the Waitangi Tribunal process.
The Crown is not in a position to make mandate decisions for Ngāpuhi, nor can the Crown
prevent an entity from seeking a mandate from a claimant community. We understand there
is a desire within Ngāpuhi to resolve issues around how to progress the settlement of their
historical grievances while also considering how that process should involve Tribunal
hearings. Representatives of Tūhoronuku and Te Kōtahitanga o Nga Hapū Ngāpuhi
(Kōtahitanga) have formed a technical working group, Te Rōpū Whāiti, to work through these
issues. We see this as a positive step towards a unified Ngāpuhi.
Tūhoronuku and Kōtihitanga are scheduled to report back to the Minister for Treaty of
Waitangi Negotiations in mid December on any progress made or at a later date if the groups
decide they need more time. The Crown has undertaken not to take steps regarding
mandate issues before that report back. The Crown is keen to see as much agreement as
possible among Ngāpuhi on the best pathway forward for a unified Ngāpuhi settlement
process.
Näku noa, nä
Maureen Hickey
Negotiation and Settlement Manager
20
out of scope
New claims region:
Inquiry region:
Inquiry district:
Pend-ing
Wai
Named organisation(s)
Whanau
Hapu
Iwi
1
2
3
1
2
1
2
claim ID
1896
5040
Far North
Te Raki
Hokianga
Whangaroa
22
out of scope
Historical/
Specific
contempor
Pend-ing
To be settled/settled in
Partly settled/or to be partly
Wai
3
4
5
6
7
locality/ Postal town
ary
On Tribunal list
claim ID
other negs
settled in other negs
block
(pre/post
21 Sep 92)
1896
5040
Whangarei
Bay of
Mahurangi
Yes
AUCKLAND
Historical
Yes
23
Principal claim issues:
Land loss,
Socio-econ
Pend-ing
On Tuhoronuku
Constitution
Constitutional
War/
Crown
Takings
Political
Cultural
Wai
NLC
Land admin & devt
Env. Impact
services &
Conceptual
Other
claim ID
mandate list
al issues
only claim
raupatu
purchasing
(PW, rates)
autonomy
loss
processes
impact
1896
5040
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
24
Additional information:
Pend-ing
Wai
Notes on issues
claim ID
out of scope
1896
5040
25
Document 8
5 July 2013
Denis Patrick Hanley
Wai 1896
C/o Jamaica Chambers
PO Box 7728, Wellesley Street
AUCKLAND 1141
Tēnā koe
Wai Claim: Wai 1896 – Notification of Te Rōpū O Tūhoronuku Deed of Mandate for Ngāpuhi’s
Treaty of Waitangi Settlement Negotiations
I am writing to inform you Te Rōpū o Tūhoronuku (Tūhoronuku) have placed a Deed of Mandate
before the Crown for consideration. The Office of Treaty Settlements (OTS) is now publicly providing
information on the Deed of Mandate and inviting public submissions, views or inquiries for a six
week period from 8 July to 18 August 2013.
Tūhoronuku seeks to negotiate the full and final settlement of all historical Ngāpuhi claims. This
includes
Wai 1896 in full.
In 2009 Tūhoronuku was established by Te Rūnanga Ā Iwi o Ngāpuhi (
the Rūnanga) to progress
negotiations with the Crown for a comprehensive settlement of all the historical Treaty of Waitangi
claims of Ngāpuhi. Prior to this the Crown recognised Ngāpuhi as a large natural grouping for Treaty
settlement purposes.
The Crown strongly prefers to negotiate settlements with large natural groups of tribal interests,
rather than with individual hapū, whānau, Wai claimants or owners of particular land blocks within a
iwi. This allows the claimant negotiators and the Crown to develop a settlement package that covers
a wide range of redress. It can also reduce overlapping claim issues as these issues can be addressed
internally within the group.
Tūhoronuku undertook its formal mandate process in 2011, holding hui throughout New Zealand
and Australia, and conduct a mandate ballot. The outcome of the ballot was 76% of those who voted
were in favour of the mandate. Over the last 18 months considerable effort has been put into
addressing issues raised by members of Ngāpuhi during the mandate process regarding the
Tūhoronuku Deed of Mandate.
26
As a result, since the 2011 vote, the Deed of Mandate has been amended and the four key changes
are listed below.
• Tūhoronuku will transition into a new and separate legal entity to be known as the Tūhoronuku
Independent Mandated Authority (Tūhoronuku IMA) and the Rūnanga will have no control over
the Tūhoronuku IMA.
• Hapū-based representation on the new entity will increase from 7 to 15 members, with 3
members elected from each of the 5 identified Ngāpuhi regions (Hokianga, Kaikohe-Waimate-
Taiāmai, Whangaroa, Te Pēwhairangi and Whangārei ki Mangakāhia).
• Rūnanga representation will be reduced to 1.
• An independent returning officer will be appointed to oversee the nomination and election
processes for appointing representatives to the Tūhoronuku IMA, ensuring a fair and
transparent election process.
Following these amendments, the proposed representative structure of the Tūhoronuku IMA is as
follows:
Representative structure
Membership
Total
Hapū-based
3 x positions per region (x 5 regions)
15
Urban
4 x independent (non-regional) positions- Auckland
4
Central, Auckland South, Wellington and South Island.
Rūnanga
1 x independent (non-regional) position
1
Kuia/Kaumātua
2 x independent (non-regional) positions
2
Maximum of
22
If the Deed of Mandate is recognised by the Crown, new elections will be held for all trustees of
Tūhoronuku IMA. The Deed of Mandate states that Tūhoronuku IMA will appoint negotiators to
undertake settlement negotiations with the Crown.
Tūhoronuku seeks to negotiate the full and final settlement of historical Ngāpuhi Wai claims. Further
work has also been completed on the claimant definition. The advertised Deed of Mandate includes
an updated list of Ngāpuhi hapū and Wai claims (please see list of hapū/ marae enclosed). This
includes Wai 1896 in full. The settlement of all Ngāpuhi claims would settle Wai 1896 in full.
I would like to ensure that you have adequate opportunity to make a submission on the Tūhoronuku
Deed of Mandate. Please find a copy of public notification for the Tūhoronuku Deed of Mandate
attached for your information.
If you wish to make a submission regarding the Tūhoronuku Deed of Mandate and Addendum I
invite you to send your submission to: The Director, Office of Treaty Settlements, SX 10 111,
Wellington or via email to [email address] by 5pm 18 August 2013.
27
Document 9
31 July 2013
Denis Patrick Hanley
C/- Gerald Sharrock
PO Box 34-154
Birkenhead
NORTH SHORE CITY
Wai Claim: Wai 1896 – Notification of Te Rōpū O Tūhoronuku Deed of Mandate for Ngāpuhi’s
Treaty of Waitangi Settlement Negotiations
I am writing to inform you Te Rōpū o Tūhoronuku (Tūhoronuku) have placed a Deed of Mandate
before the Crown for consideration. The Office of Treaty Settlements (OTS) is now publicly providing
information on the Deed of Mandate and inviting public submissions, views or inquiries for a six
week period from 8 July to 18 August 2013.
Tūhoronuku seeks to negotiate the full and final settlement of all historical Ngāpuhi claims. This
includes
Wai 1896 in full.
In 2009 Tūhoronuku was established by Te Rūnanga Ā Iwi o Ngāpuhi (
the Rūnanga) to progress
negotiations with the Crown for a comprehensive settlement of all the historical Treaty of Waitangi
claims of Ngāpuhi. Prior to this the Crown recognised Ngāpuhi as a large natural grouping for Treaty
settlement purposes.
The Crown strongly prefers to negotiate settlements with large natural groups of tribal interests,
rather than with individual hapū, whānau, Wai claimants or owners of particular land blocks within a
iwi. This allows the claimant negotiators and the Crown to develop a settlement package that covers
a wide range of redress. It can also reduce overlapping claim issues as these issues can be addressed
internally within the group.
Tūhoronuku undertook its formal mandate process in 2011, holding hui throughout New Zealand
and Australia, and conduct a mandate ballot. The outcome of the ballot was 76% of those who voted
were in favour of the mandate. Over the last 18 months considerable effort has been put into
addressing issues raised by members of Ngāpuhi during the mandate process regarding the
Tūhoronuku Deed of Mandate.
As a result, since the 2011 vote, the Deed of Mandate has been amended and the four key changes
are listed below.
29
• Tūhoronuku will transition into a new and separate legal entity to be known as the Tūhoronuku
Independent Mandated Authority (Tūhoronuku IMA) and the Rūnanga will have no control over
the Tūhoronuku IMA.
• Hapū-based representation on the new entity will increase from 7 to 15 members, with 3
members elected from each of the 5 identified Ngāpuhi regions (Hokianga, Kaikohe-Waimate-
Taiāmai, Whangaroa, Te Pēwhairangi and Whangārei ki Mangakāhia).
• Rūnanga representation will be reduced to 1.
• An independent returning officer will be appointed to oversee the nomination and election
processes for appointing representatives to the Tūhoronuku IMA, ensuring a fair and
transparent election process.
Following these amendments, the proposed representative structure of the Tūhoronuku IMA is as
follows:
Representative structure
Membership
Total
Hapū-based
3 x positions per region (x 5 regions)
15
Urban
4 x independent (non-regional) positions- Auckland
4
Central, Auckland South, Wellington and South Island.
Rūnanga
1 x independent (non-regional) position
1
Kuia/Kaumātua
2 x independent (non-regional) positions
2
Maximum of
22
If the Deed of Mandate is recognised by the Crown, new elections will be held for all trustees of
Tūhoronuku IMA. The Deed of Mandate states that Tūhoronuku IMA will appoint negotiators to
undertake settlement negotiations with the Crown.
Tūhoronuku seeks to negotiate the full and final settlement of historical Ngāpuhi Wai claims. Further
work has also been completed on the claimant definition. The advertised Deed of Mandate includes
an updated list of Ngāpuhi hapū and Wai claims (please see list of hapū/ marae enclosed). This
includes Wai 1896 in full. The settlement of all Ngāpuhi claims would settle Wai 1896 in full.
I would like to ensure that you have adequate opportunity to make a submission on the Tūhoronuku
Deed of Mandate. Please find a copy of public notification for the Tūhoronuku Deed of Mandate
attached for your information.
If you wish to make a submission regarding the Tūhoronuku Deed of Mandate and Addendum I
invite you to send your submission to: The Director, Office of Treaty Settlements, SX 10 111,
Wellington or via email to [email address] by 5pm 18 August 2013.
For more information and to download an electronic copy of the deed of mandate visit
www.ots.govt.nz or www.tpk.govt.nz or www.tuhoronuku.com. Physical copies of the deed of
mandate can also be obtained from Te Puni Kōkiri (
TPK) offices (for locations of TPK offices visit
www.tpk.govt.nz or call 04 819 6000).
30
Document 11
34
35
67 & 1063
A.J. Packington- Wai 1896
Objects to his claim being
Looked at the statement of
Hall on behalf
labelled a Ngāpuhi claim,
claim and it is very clearly a
Out of
of Denis Patrick
says it is a large natural
Ngāpuhi claim. (at Wai 1040,
scope
Hanley
grouping that has branched
#1.1.306 on the Paparahi files)
off from Ngāpuhi.
39
Ngāti Parenga;
Pākanae;
;
Ngāti Patutaratara;
Te Whaka-maharatanga;
Ngāti Pongia;
Waiwhatawhata;
Ngāti Pou;
Mahuri;
Ngāti Rāhiri;
Tāheke;
Ngāti- Rahuwhakairi;
Matai Aranui;
Ngāti Rangi;
Mōria;
Ngāti Rangihana;
Ōmanaia;
Ngāti Rauwawe;
Pā te Aroha;
Ngāti Rēhia;
Mataitaua;
Ngāti Ruamahue;
Mokonuiārangi;
Ngāti Taka;
Motukiore;
Ngāti Tautahi;
Rangatahi;
Ngāti Te Ara;
Tauratumaru;
Ngāti Te Rino;
Mahuri;
Ngāti Te Tārawa;
Moehau;
Wai 1896;
Ngāti Tipa;
Ōtatara;
Ngāti Toki;
Tuhirangi;
Ngāti Torehina;
Ngāti Toro;
Taiāmai
Ngāti Tū;
Tauwhara;
Ngāti Tuapango;
Tākou;
Ngāti Ueoneone;
Parawhenua;
Ngāti Uru;
Rawhitiroa;
Ngāti Whakaeke;
Oromāhoe;
Ngāti Whakahotu;
Te Tii Waitangi;
Ngāti- Whakamaunga;
Ngāwhā;
Ngāti Whārara;
Mātauri;
Patuharakeke;
Waitangi National;
Patukeha;
Hiruhārama Hou;
Te Aeto;
Korokota;
Te Hikutu;
Mātoa;
Te Honihoni;
Maungārongo;
Te Ihutai;
Tākou;
Te Kapotai;
Whitiora;
Te Kumutu;
Wharengaere;
Te Māhurehure;
Kororareka;
Te Ngahengahe;
Te Ngare Hauata;
Taumārere
Te Orewai;
Te Rāwhiti;
Te Parawhau;
Kāretu;
Te Pōpoto;
Pakaru-ki te Rangi;
Te Pōtai;
Kaingahoa;
Te Pouka;
Kororareka;
Te Rauwera;
Waihaahaa;
Te Tahawai;
Waikare;
Te Takoto Kē;
Te Rauwera;
Te Uri Kai Whare;
Waimango;
Te Uri Karaka;
Te Uri Māhoe;
Ngāti Hine
42
Te Uri o Hua;
Horomanga;
Te Uri o Ratakitaki;
Kaikou;
Te Uri o Te Aho;
Kawiti;
Te Uri Ongongo;
Matawaia;
Te Uri Taniwha;
Maungārongo;
Te Uriroroi;
Miria;
Te Wahineiti;
Mohinui;
Te Waiāriki;
Mōtatau;
Te Whānau- Whero;
Ōtiria;
Te Whiu;
Matawaia;
Tekau I Mua;
Tau Henare
Whānau Pani;
Whānautara
43
Claimant definition database: Full list of Wai Claims and full or partial settlements
Wai number
Claim details
Settled in-full
Wai 1896
Descendants of Patuone of Ngapuhi Claim
Ngāpuhi (ToN 22-05-15)
44
Wahamarangai (Blocks 1 and 2), Waihiri, Whakateterekia, and Whakatiwai, plus 7 others and relates to
succession and record-alignment issues.
We are currently organising governance arrangements and mandate confirmation and wish to ensure
alignment with the Crown’s settlement framework.
I would appreciate a written response outlining the Crown’s position and next procedural steps.
Ngā mihi,
Mark William David Thomson
Named Claimant – WAI 1896
46
Specifically:
1.
Does the Crown consider WAI 1896 to fall within a proposed Large Natural Grouping
(LNG) in Te Paparahi o Te Raki, and if so, which grouping?
2.
Does the Crown consider WAI 1896 eligible for discrete negotiation, given that it concerns
specific Crown-issued land grants and succession matters affecting defined descendants of Hapi Waka and
Hohaia Patuone?
3.
What steps are required from the claimants to progress toward settlement discussions?
The claim concerns identifiable Crown grants including Takapuna (Tāmaki Makaurau), Waitaroto, Tarakihi,
Wahamarangai (Blocks 1 and 2), Waihiri, Whakateterekia, and Whakatiwai, plus 7 others and relates to
succession and record-alignment issues.
We are currently organising governance arrangements and mandate confirmation and wish to ensure
alignment with the Crown’s settlement framework.
I would appreciate a written response outlining the Crown’s position and next procedural steps.
Ngā mihi,
Mark William David Thomson
Named Claimant – WAI 1896
48
Document 20
Eruera Maihi Patuone – Groups he is associated with
Peter Clayworth (Senior Historian)
11 March 2026
Patuone (?-1872) Birth date unknown- age at time of death on 19 September 1872 estimated
between 96 and 112 years old. Note that Patuone took the names Eruera Maihi (Edward Marsh)
when he was baptised as a Christian in January 1840.
Ngāpuhi groups
Patuone was eldest son of Tapua, leader of
Ngāti Hao of Hokianga. Tamati Waka Nene was
Patuone’s teina (younger brother).1
Through his mother, Te Kawehau, he was descended from Te Wairua, also an ancestor of Hongi
Hika, Ruatara, Rewa and Hone Heke. Patuone thus had distant connections to;
Ngāi Tawake,
Patukeha,
Ngāti Torehina ki Matakā, and
Ngāti Tautahi among others.2
Patuone also related by marriage and descent to
Ngāti Pou of Whangaroa.3
Ptuone connected with
Ngāti Rangi.4
Non-Ngāpuhi groups
Patuone related by marriage and descent to
Te Roroa of Hokianga and Kaipara.5
In early 1830s Patuone married Takarangi (baptised Riria in 1840) of
Ngāti Pāoa- her brother, Te
Kupenga, was a rangatira based at Whakatīwai pā (near Maraetai) in the Hauraki Gulf. From this
point on Patuone closely associated with Ngāti Pāoa, spending much of his time in Hauraki Gulf.
Patuone lived in Te Kātū (harbour side of Takapuna) in the 1840s, then from 1849 (?) at
Whawharariki on Takapuna Beach. (Area of land Governor Grey gifted to him, but granted only
for Patuone’s lifetime).6 After his death in 1872, Patuone was buried in the Mt Victoria cemetery,
Devonport, Auckland.7
1 Angela Ballara. 'Patuone, Eruera Maihi', Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, first published in 1990,
updated November 2010. Te Ara - the Encyclopedia of New Zealand,
https://teara.govt.nz/en/biographies/1p12/patuone-eruera-maihi (accessed 10 March 2026).
2 Patuone, Eruera Maihi | Dictionary of New Zealand Biography | Te Ara; J. Sissons, W. Wi Hongi, P. Hohepa,
Ngā Pūriri o Taiamai: A political history of Ngāpuhi in the inland Bay of Islands, Reed Books: Auckland,
2001, pp. 16,17,19.
3 Patuone, Eruera Maihi | Dictionary of New Zealand Biography | Te Ara
4 Eruera Maihi Patuone | NZ History Signatories of Declaration of Independence (accessed 11 March 2026)
5 Patuone, Eruera Maihi | Dictionary of New Zealand Biography | Te Ara
6 Patuone, Eruera Maihi | Dictionary of New Zealand Biography | Te Ara
7 Patuone, Eruera Maihi | Dictionary of New Zealand Biography | Te Ara
49
Note that Takarangi was the third of Patuone’s four wives.8 His first wife was Te Wheke, the
second was Te Hoia and the fourth was Rutu. I have yet to ascertain their hapū/iwi
connections.9
On Patuone’s connection to
Ngāti Pāoa and areas in Mahurangi and Tamaki Makau Rau:
From Peter Clayworth Memo ‘Waitangi Tribunal Wai 1040 Stage 2 Report information Mahurangi
area Hapū/Iwi interests- Summary’, 4 May 2023 Wai 1040 Stage 2 Mahurangi Hapū-Iwi interests
summary.docx
Around 1830, Ngāpuhi and Ngāti Paoa began negotiating a peace agreement, sealed
in 1833 by the marriage of Patuone, of the Hokianga hapū Ngāti Hao, to Riria
Takarangi, a high-ranking Ngāti Paoa woman.10 After the peacemaking Ngāti Paoa
began to move back into Tāmaki and Mahurangi, while Patuone established kainga at
Takapuna and Takarunga (Mount Victoria). In the late 1830s, a section of Ngāti Hao
took up land at Te Ngāere, near Tāwharanui. Apparently the land was gifted by a
section of Ngāti Rongo, although others from Ngāti Rongo contested this.11
Note that the Crown has conceded that “in purchasing of the extensive area called ‘Mahurangi
and Omaha’ in 1841 it breached Te Tiriti o Waitangi/the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles by
failing to conduct any investigation of customary rights when it purchased these lands.”12 I have
yet to find any indication that Patuone had any role in this purchase or that it involved any land
he had rights to.
8 Patuone - Whakapapa accessed 11 March 2026; Patuone, Eruera Maihi | Dictionary of New Zealand
Biography | Te Ara
9 C. O. Davis,
The Life and Times of Patuone, The Celebrated Ngapuhi Chief, Auckland: J.H. Field, 1876,
pp. 24-25.
10 Wai 1040, Stage 2 Report, p. 158 [2022 prepublication version] Wai 1040 Te Paparahi o Te Raki Stage 2 Pt
1 Report pre-publication version 2022.pdf. The Report does not give a name for the “senior Ngāti Paoa
woman” Patuone married. DNZB gives her name as Takarangi and says she was sister of Te Kupenga- see
Patuone, Eruera Maihi – Dictionary of New Zealand Biography – Te Ara accessed 2 May 2023; Davis gives
her name as Riria Takarangi- see C.O. Davis,
Life and Times of Patuone, 1876, p. 20, ENZB - 1876 - Davis,
C. O. The Life and Times of Patuone - [Pages 5-50] (auckland.ac.nz)
11 Wai 1040 Stage 2 Report, pp.158-159 [2022 prepublication version].
12 Crown Statement of Position and Concessions, 6 July 2012, Wai 1040, 1.3..2, p.97.
50
Gerald has since retired, and several generations of our whanau have died. I have
recently been able to be added as a named claimant on Wai 1896 and also amended
our statement of claim specifically for the lands were have clear title too. I have this
documentation currently and have self-funded anthropological studies into
processes and violations of the Treaty over the last couple of decades.
Nevertheless, we now find ourselves at an impasse with Central Government. We
want to get the fastest way to a fair and equitable settlement so we can get to work
and build jobs for future generations of New Zealanders. We are putting together a
PSGE currently. But we cannot seem to avoid the Treaty Settlements Office wanting
to lump us in with other groups in Whangarei of all places - so I am humbly asking for
assistance to reach a discrete settlement.
Please find briefing below:
WAI 1896 – Briefing Note
What the claim is
Wai 1896 is a whānau claim, not an iwi-wide rohe claim. It is based on specific land
blocks with documented ownership and succession issues, not on broad mana
whenua assertions.
Why this matters
The claim is at risk of being absorbed into a wider Ngāpuhi/Large Natural Grouping
settlement structure. That would create confusion and likely delay, because our
claim is narrower and more specific than an iwi-level settlement process.
Why discrete settlement is appropriate
A separate pathway is appropriate because Wai 1896 concerns actual titled land
blocks and identifiable ownership chains. It is not a general territorial claim. Treating
it separately would avoid unnecessary overlap and allow the Crown to deal directly
with the proven blocks and succession failures.
Key land blocks involved
The claim is being advanced on a land-block basis and includes, among others:
Takapuna (110-acre Crown Grant to Patuone) – one of the most important
blocks in the claim
Waitaroto Block 1 – large Hokianga block
Tarakihi (Te Kawakawa)
Wahamarangai (Blocks 1 and 2)
52
Waihiri
Whakateterekia
Manga Karamu
Te Toke (Waihou)
Pukoro (Waihou)
Waihou 2782 Tai Kawhanga
Waikoropupu Nos. 1, 2 and 3 (Waihou)
Kauri-roa / Kauriroa
Moturoa Island
Ponsonby / Section 48 Auckland lots connected with the Horace Hanley estate
Further archival title records are still being retrieved for some of these blocks.
Nature of the claim
The claim involves two related issues:
1. Succession failures in Crown-recognised titles - Lands held by Patuone, Hone
Waka, Wiremu Waka Turau and related family lines were not properly succeeded
within the whānau.
2. Colonial legal system failures affecting the Hanley/Hapi Waka line - In the
Ponsonby lands, the surviving Māori mother, Hapi Waka, was effectively excluded
from property control under the colonial legal system. European executors then
mortgaged the estate while the principal heir was still a minor. The resulting court
case provided only limited financial relief and did not restore the lands.
Why separation helps
Separation from a wider Ngāpuhi settlement pathway would:
keep the claim focused on specific blocks
avoid confusion with iwi-level mandate and rohe issues reduce overlap
arguments
allow the Crown to address the claim as a defined succession and title
problem
create a faster and cleaner route to settlement
What we are asking for
We are seeking support for:
recognition of Wai 1896 as a distinct whānau-based land claim
engagement with Te Tari Whakatau on a discrete settlement pathway
53
progression of the claim based on the actual titled land blocks and
documentary evidence, rather than folding it into a broader Ngāpuhi process
Ngā mihi nui,
Mark Thomson
Wai 1896 Claimant
54
Document 23
1 April 2026
Mark Thomson
Via email:
section 9(2)(a)
Tēnā koe,
WAI 1896 – Request for Clarification of Settlement Pathway
Thank you for your emails of 2, 11, 28 March and 1 April, as well as your 24 March email to the
Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, requesting a response on an appropriate
settlement pathway for the Wai 1896 claim.
Thank you for your understanding regarding our delayed response as we have considered the
matters you have raised and reviewed documents related to Wai 1896. We have set out our
responses to your questions below.
1. Does the Crown consider WAI 1896 to fal within a proposed Large Natural Grouping (LNG)
in Te Paparahi o Te Raki, and if so, which grouping?
The Crown settles historical Treaty of Waitangi claims with LNGs. We would expect Wai 1896
will come within a Ngāpuhi hapū grouping to the extent the claim arises from Ngāpuhi descent
lines or customary interests (that is, through any hapū Patuone affiliated with in relation to this
claim).
To the extent the claim arises from Ngāti Pāoa descent or customary interests through Patuone’s
marriage to a Ngāti Pāoa woman then any claims will have been settled through the Ngāti Pāoa
Claims Settlement Act 2025.
2. Does the Crown consider WAI 1896 eligible for discrete negotiation, given that it concerns
specific Crown-issued land grants and succession matters affecting defined descendants of
Hapi Waka and Hohaia Patuone?
56
No, the Crown negotiates all historical Treaty of Waitangi claims of an LNG together, including
claims about specific land blocks made on a whānau basis.
Crown policy is to negotiate comprehensive Treaty settlement redress with LNGs and not
individual whānau, hapū or claimants. This approach is generally supported by the Waitangi
Tribunal, who has encouraged the Crown to apply the LNG policy practically and flexibly.
There are over 400 Wai claims in the Te Paparahi o Te Raki Wai 1040 Waitangi Tribunal Inquiry,
including claims about specific local grievances, whānau and hapū claims as well as larger iwi-
wide claims. Given the large size of the area, the number of claims and hapū, it is not practical to
negotiate claim by claim or hapū by hapū.
Negotiating all the claims of an LNG together also enables a wider range of redress to be offered,
ensures that overlapping interests can be managed effectively, and reduces costs. In the Crown’s
experience, overlapping interests become more challenging the more a group and the associated
claims are fragmented.
3. What steps are required from the claimants to progress toward settlement discussions?
As a first step, we encourage you to discuss with your whānau and hapū how you want the Wai
1896 claim to be represented in historical Treaty settlement negotiations within a Ngāpuhi hapū
grouping.
In 2019, the Crown discontinued its recognition of the Ngāpuhi iwi-wide mandate held by
Tūhoronuku Iwi Mandate Authority. The current Ngāpuhi mandating process involves hapū
coming together to form hapū groupings across regions. The hapū groupings are the equivalent
of an LNG in the Ngāpuhi context.
There are active discussions across many Ngāpuhi hapū about the mandating process and several
hapū groupings have been confirmed. Typical y, hapū who are connected through whakapapa,
local alliances and history will group together, although this is up to each hapū to consider. From
the information you have provided, we note Hokianga hapū connections but there may be other
groupings that would be suitable.
The first formal step in this process is for a group of Ngāpuhi hapū to submit a hapū grouping
proposal to Te Tari Whakatau. These proposals need to include multiple hapū rather than a
single hapū or whānau. Once confirmed by the Crown, the hapū grouping then works to seek a
57
mandate from their claimant community to negotiate the settlement of all of their historical
Treaty of Waitangi claims.
I would also encourage you to access the mandating information and tools on our website here:
Te Tari Whakatau - Mandate Toolkit for ngā hapū o Ngāpuhi.
We recognise the Treaty negotiations process raises many questions for hapū and whānau and
would be happy to discuss this with you further.
Please contact Tania Anderson, Principal Advisor ([email address]) or Morgan
Hodgson, Acting Negotiations and Settlement Manager ([email address]) if
you have further questions.
Nāku noā, nā
Leah Campbell
Director
58
I also note your recommendation that we engage with Northland marae and community discussions.
With respect, WAI 1896 is not simply a marae-based participation issue. The claim concerns identified historical land interests, Crown-recognised grants, succession matters, and legally documented claimant
interests extending beyond a conventional Northland rohe framework.
At present, no clear explanation has been provided regarding:
– who, if anyone, presently holds recognised authority regarding Ngāti Hao structures;
– whether WAI 1896 may participate in shaping or leading any future grouping discussions;
– or how the Crown intends to ensure that the claimant group’s interests are not subsumed, diluted, or overlooked within broader regional negotiations.
These issues remain unresolved despite WAI 1896 having been active since 2008.
Ngā mihi,
Mark Thomson
Named claimant – WAI 1896
On 27 May 2026, at 3:21 PM, Wynne, Sonya <[email address]> wrote:
Kia ora Mark,
Thank you for your email below of 11 May.
To confirm, no Ngāpuhi claims have been settled yet. Mandating for Ngāpuhi hapū groupings is ongoing and in some areas such as the Hokianga is still at a very early stage.
We recommend you engage with marae and communities to which you whakapapa and to ensure any claims, including Wai 1896, are a part of pre-mandating/mandating discussions now happening.
We think early engagement is preferable for building connections, identifying potential issues and solutions concerning representation and mandate structures.
The community pages in the Hokianga we have provided can be a good source of information about such meetings.
We would be happy to discuss this with you further at your convenience.
Ngā mihi, nā
Sonya Wynne
SENIOR ANALYST
CEL: DDI: 04 914 3070
WEB: https //whakatau govt nz
Office of Treaty Settlements and Takutai Moana—
Te Tari Whakatau
Level 2, Just ce Centre, 19 Aitken Street, SX10111, Wellington 6011
From: Mark Thomson
section 9(2)(a)
Sent: Monday, 11 May 2026 7:04 pm
To: Wynne, Sonya <[email address]>
Cc: Henderson, Rewi <[email address]>; Anderson, Tania <[email address]>; Mellows, Alexandria <[email address]>
Subject: Re: WAI 1896 – Request for Clarification of Settlement Pathway
Kia ora,
Thank you for your correspondence to date.
I write further regarding WAI 1896 on behalf of the descendants of Patuone.
I wish to state respectfully but clearly that the responses received thus far have not substantively addressed the central issues raised.
WAI 1896 is not a newly emerged or speculative claim. The Crown has been aware of the descendants of Patuone, the nature of the grievances, and the identified overlapping land interests for many
years prior to formal filing in 2008, and formally since the claim was lodged.
The claim itself specifically identifies documented ancestral and historical interests associated with Patuone and his descendants across Mahurangi, Tāmaki Makaurau, the North Shore,
Whenuapai/Hobsonville, Riverhead, Ōrākei, Hokianga, and associated northern systems, supported by Crown grants, Native Land Court material, title history, and identifiable historical occupation and
take.
Importantly, the descendants of Patuone have deliberately approached these matters conservatively and reasonably by focusing primarily on documented land interests and Crown-recognised title
histories rather than asserting broad speculative customary claims.
Despite this, multiple surrounding Treaty settlements have proceeded over the same period involving areas and interests overlapping those expressly identified within WAI 1896, including matters
associated with Te Roroa, Ngāti Whātua, Ngāti Pāoa, and wider Tāmaki/Hauraki settlement processes.
At the same time, WAI 1896 appears to have remained procedurally sidelined without any clearly articulated pathway for substantive participation, recognition, or protection of overlapping interests.
Your correspondence states that settlements proceed through mandated large natural groups or recognised hapū structures rather than individual Wai claims. However, your own response also
acknowledges that no recognised Hokianga grouping currently exists.
This gives rise to a fundamental procedural contradiction:
• WAI 1896 has not been recognised independently for negotiation purposes;
• no alternative recognised Hokianga structure presently exists;
• overlapping settlements have nevertheless continued;
• and no clear mechanism has been identified by which the descendants of Patuone were expected to protect or advance their interests during those processes.
To date, no substantive explanation has been provided regarding:
1. why WAI 1896 has remained effectively unresolved and procedurally marginalised for such an extended period;
2. how overlapping settlements involving lands expressly identified within WAI 1896 were assessed against our interests;
3. whether overlap reports, consultation assessments, or representation determinations were undertaken concerning the descendants of Patuone;
4. whether any groups settling overlapping interests purported to represent or extinguish interests associated with the descendants of Patuone;
5. or what practical pathway now exists for WAI 1896 to obtain meaningful recognition or engagement.
I also wish to raise a further issue regarding the Crown’s repeated references to “mandated large natural groups” and recognised hapū structures.
As part of our ongoing research, we have identified archival Native Land Court ownership material relating to Waikoropupū No. 1 at Waihou in Hokianga identifying:
“Hohaia Patuone and 26 other members of the Ngatitore Hapū”
as the recognised ownership collective associated with the block and associated pā interests.
This material is significant because it demonstrates that the descendants and connected whānau of Hohaia Patuone were historically recognised collectively through the hapū identity of Ngāti Tore
within formal Crown and Native Land Court processes.
Importantly, the descendants of Ngāti Tore are, in substance, the descendants of Patuone and his connected whānau lines operating under a recognised collective hapū identity.
60
This gives rise to a further question which has not yet been addressed clearly:
If documented historical collective ownership, recognised hapū identification, identifiable descendants, continuing claimant structure, surviving land interests, and longstanding Wai claim status are
still considered insufficient to constitute a meaningful basis for engagement or recognition within the modern settlement framework, then what exactly does the Crown consider necessary to constitute
a “modern negotiating mandate” in practical terms?
This question is particularly important given that:
• no recognised Hokianga mandate structure currently exists;
• WAI 1896 has existed formally since 2008 and informally much earlier;
• the descendants of Patuone remain identifiable and connected through both whakapapa and documented land interests;
• and historical collective recognition through Ngāti Tore is demonstrably recorded within Crown-recognised ownership systems themselves.
In those circumstances, it is difficult to understand what additional threshold the descendants of Patuone are expected to satisfy before substantive recognition or engagement becomes possible.
These concerns are serious and longstanding. They relate directly to procedural fairness, consistency of Crown process, recognition of overlapping interests, and the ability of longstanding claimant
groups to meaningfully participate within the Treaty settlement framework.
Accordingly, I respectfully request a final substantive response addressing the matters raised above, including a clear explanation of what procedural pathway the Crown considers available to WAI
1896 moving forward.
In the absence of a clear and workable pathway, and absent substantive engagement with the issues identified, the descendants of Patuone will have little option but to consider seeking further review
and intervention through other legal avenues concerning the procedural treatment of WAI 1896 and the handling of overlapping settlement interests.
I would appreciate a detailed response within a reasonable timeframe.
Ngā mihi nui,
Mark Thomson
WAI 1896
On 11 May 2026, at 4:07 PM, Wynne, Sonya <[email address]> wrote:
Kia ora Mark,
Thank you for your email and please see our responses below:
1. We acknowledge the concerns you have expressed about entering mandating discussions and understand why this feels uncertain.
2. Mandates are built from the ground up through discussions between uri and hapū members choosing to form an entity and seeking the mandate of the wider group.
3. It is usual not to have all the answers in the early stages of discussions and it is a matter of going step by step.
4. We encourage you to contact communities on the ground for the hapū to which you and your whānau can whakapapa.
5. We do not have a contact to provide for Hokianga as there is no hapū grouping yet proposed, but we note the community pages we have recommended joining.
6. Other than Te Whakaaetanga Trust which is mandated to represent Ngāti Manu, Ngāti Torehina ki Matakā, Ngāti Kuta and Patukeha, no other mandates have been recognised.
7. Wai claims (or aspects of those Wai claims) can be settled across multiple settlements (and different areas).
8. The Crown negotiates and settles with an entity that has received the mandate of the large natural group (or in the Ngāpuhi context, hapū groupings) rather than Wai claimants - this is
in part because in most cases, a Wai claimants is not the only one impacted by acts or omissions of the Crown which gave rise to the grievance.
9. We do not know the specifics of the claim in detail but that would be addressed via negotiations with the appropriately mandated group.
Happy to discuss by Teams call if needed, please let us know if you would like a further discussion.
Ngā mihi, nā
<image001.jpg>
Sonya Wynne
SENIOR ANALYST
CEL: DDI: 04 914 3070
WEB: https //whakatau govt nz
Office of Treaty Settlements and Takutai Moana—
Te Tari Whakatau
Level 2, Just ce Centre, 19 Aitken Street, SX10111, Wellington 6011
From: Mark Thomson
section 9(2)(a)
Sent: Wednesday, 6 May 2026 5:18 pm
To: Wynne, Sonya <[email address]>
Cc: Henderson, Rewi <[email address]>; Anderson, Tania <[email address]>; Mellows, Alexandria <[email address]>
Subject: Re: WAI 1896 – Request for Clarification of Settlement Pathway
Tēnā koutou,
Thank you for your detailed response and for clarifying the Crown’s current position regarding hapū grouping and mandating processes.
We acknowledge the Crown’s preference to negotiate through large natural groupings and understand that many questions relating to representation and internal structure are intended to
be addressed through the mandating process itself.
However, our concerns remain substantive and unresolved.
WAI 1896 is a defined claimant group associated with specific and documented land interests connected to the descendants of Eruera Maihi Patuone. These interests are not confined to a
single locality or simple rohe structure, but instead extend across multiple identified land blocks and associated waterways.
At present, we remain unclear on several critical matters, including:
– which grouping or groupings the Crown considers relevant to WAI 1896
– whether any authority presently exists that is intended to represent Ngāti Hao interests in this process
– whether WAI 1896 claimants may participate in initiating, forming, or helping develop any future Ngāti Hao grouping or mandate structure
– how claimant groups with land interests extending beyond a single hapū rohe are intended to be accommodated
– how our claimant group’s defined land interests will be specifically recognised, tracked, and protected within any future mandated structure
– how the Crown intends to ensure that formally registered claimant groups are not subsumed, overlooked, or diluted within broader negotiations before representation arrangements are
settled
For the avoidance of doubt, WAI 1896 has not provided mandate or authority to any entity to represent its claimant interests to date. Infact we have been ignored, minimised and sidelined for
18+ years, trust in this system is not something we have any more.
We note your advice encouraging engagement with hapū and community discussions. We are willing to engage constructively and in good faith in any future discussions relating to hapū
grouping formation and representation.
However, given that no confirmed Hokianga grouping presently exists, and no representative authority for Ngāti Hao has yet been identified to us, we respectfully seek clarification regarding
how our claimant group is expected to participate meaningfully and safely within a process that remains structurally undefined at this stage.
For the avoidance of doubt, our engagement in any discussions should not be interpreted as agreement:
– to any particular grouping structure
– to any assumption regarding representation of WAI 1896
61
– to any extinguishment, limitation, or subsuming of our defined claimant interests
– or to any waiver of the rights and interests associated with WAI 1896 and the land interests identified by the claimant group
Our objective remains to ensure that WAI 1896, and the specific land interests associated with it, are appropriately recognised and carried through any future process in a transparent and
accountable manner.
We look forward to your clarification on these matters and remain available to engage further.
Ngā mihi,
Mark Thomson
On behalf of WAI 1896 claimant group
On 6 May 2026, at 4:42 PM, Wynne, Sonya <[email address]> wrote:
Kia ora Mark,
We understand there are concerns from whānau about representation in any mandated entity and how interests will be negotiated.
We recognise these questions arise for all hapū groupings in the mandating process and they are largely a matter for the hapū grouping itself to work through and decide
collectively.
We suggest the best way to approach this is for you to discuss these matters with relevant hapū and engage with others in forming a grouping.
For future hapū hui, we recommend you join relevant marae and hapū facebook pages. E.g. Nga Uri A Iwi o Te Popoto, Hokianga community page, Mangamuka notice board, Hokianga
Community News, Horeke Noticeboard, Hokianga Hard. There are just a few of the community pages that feature hapū hui and updates from the kāinga.
Please see our detailed answers below.
–
How WAI 1896 will be formally identified and recognised within the hapū grouping framework
All Wai claims are formally identified in the hapū grouping they are included in through the mandating process:
- the Wai claims potentially included are recorded in the hapū grouping proposal, mandate strategy, and draft deed of mandate.
- The Crown expects the hapū grouping to engage with Wai claimants and the Crown writes to all Wai claimants about their potential inclusion in a grouping.
- During the mandating process this engagement and communication is ongoing.
- The final deed of mandate records all the Wai claims included in the grouping.
How a Wai claim is recognised within the hapū grouping framework is a matter for discussion and agreement within the hapū grouping.
Hapū groupings set up a variety of representative structures through a process of discussion and engagement with the claimant community.
– Whether our claimant group will be recorded as a distinct group within any grouping we participate in
Similar to the above, all Wai claims included are recorded in a Deed of Mandate. How representation is organised is a matter for the hapū grouping to discuss and agree.
– How our specific land interests, including those listed in our correspondence, will be tracked and addressed within that structure
This is a matter for the hapū grouping to consider and agree on.
The Crown’s experience is that typically mandated entities seek to negotiate a range of redress to address both particular and shared concerns.
– How the Crown will ensure that our claim is not subsumed or overlooked within broader group negotiations
As above, the structure of the the entity and how it will approach questions of redress and representation is a matter to discuss during the mandating process and is for the group
to determine.
There is a robust mandating process required through which the the claimant community confers a mandate to negotiate with the Crown on its chosen entity.
The Crown encourages any group seeking a mandate to engage with Wai claimants on how claims are represented, and has obligations in this process to ensure transparency,
accountability and appropriate representation for any mandated structure.
After a mandate is recognised, there are requirements to maintain the mandate throughout the negotiations and the mandated entity reports on how it is engaging the claimant
community. The Crown has a monitoring role to ensure accountability provisions in the deed of mandate are being fulfilled and any issues arising are being identified and dealt
with. This process includes ongoing reporting to the Crown by the mandated entity to ensure it is making best efforts to maintain the confidence of its claimant community
through regular updates, hui and other forms of engagement.
Again, happy to discuss further.
Ngā mihi,
From: Mark Thomson
section 9(2)(a)
Sent: Friday, 1 May 2026 2:29 pm
To: Wynne, Sonya <[email address]>
Cc: Hodgson, Morgan <[email address]>; Henderson, Rewi <[email address]>; Anderson, Tania <[email address]>
Subject: Re: WAI 1896 – Request for Clarification of Settlement Pathway
Tēnā koutou,
Thank you for your response and for outlining the Crown’s current position.
We acknowledge the Crown’s preference to negotiate through large natural groupings. However, our primary concern remains unchanged.
WAI 1896 is a defined claimant group, supported by identified land interests and whakapapa connections. To date, our claimant group has not been identified, assigned, or
formally recognised within any hapū grouping process (18+ years)
Before we engage with any grouping discussions, we require clarity on the following:
– How WAI 1896 will be formally identified and recognised within the hapū grouping framework
– Whether our claimant group will be recorded as a distinct group within any grouping we participate in
– How our specific land interests, including those listed in our correspondence, will be tracked and addressed within that structure
– How the Crown will ensure that our claim is not subsumed or overlooked within broader group negotiations
We note your comments regarding Takapuna land interests. Given that the Crown has not yet confirmed how these interests are to be addressed, this reinforces our concern that
our claimant group has not yet been properly identified or considered.
We are willing to engage constructively in hapū grouping discussions. However, we require assurance that our claimant group and our defined land interests will be clearly
recognised and carried through the process.
We look forward to your clarification on these points.
Ngā mihi,
Mark Thomson
On 1 May 2026, at 2:19 PM, Wynne, Sonya <[email address]> wrote:
62
On 1 Apr 2026, at 4:15 PM, Wynne, Sonya <[email address]> wrote:
Kia ora Mr Thomson,
Thank you for your email which has come through to the Ngāpuhi negotiations team.
In response to your query, below is a table showing where hapū groupings are on their mandating journey and includes
relevant details for each confirmed grouping. I note a hapū grouping has yet to be confirmed in the Hokianga.
Hapū grouping
Hapū grouping
Mandate strategy
Deed of Mandate
Website
Contact details
proposal
Te Whakaaetanga
Confirmed
Endorsed
Recognised
Kāinga | Te Whakaaetanga
[email address]
Ngā Pūriri Pūmau o Te
Confirmed
In progress
Not yet started
-
[email address]
Waimate me Taiāmai
Ngāti Hine
Confirmed
Endorsed
Not yet started
Te Tu o Ngati Hine
[email address]
Whangaroa Papa Hapū
Confirmed
In progress
Not yet started
Whangaroa Papa Hapū
[email address]
Ngā hapū o te Takutai
Confirmed
In progress
Not yet started
-
[email address]
Moana
All other groups
In progress
Not yet started
Not yet started
-
1.
You can find out more about the hapū grouping proposal step online in the Ngāpuhi Mandate Toolkit.
I hope this information addresses your query – but don’t hesitate to let me know if you have any questions.
Ngā mihi, nā
<image001.jpg>
Sonya Wynne
SENIOR ANALYST
CEL: DDI: 04 914 3070
WEB: https //whakatau govt nz
Office of Treaty Settlements and Takutai Moana—
Te Tari Whakatau
Level 2, Justice Centre, 19 Aitken Street, SX10111, Wellington 6011
From: Mark Thomson
section 9(2)(a)
Sent: Wednesday, 1 April 2026 2:23 pm
To: [Te Tari Whakatau request email]; [email address] <[email address]>
Subject: WAI 1896 – Request for Clarification of Settlement Pathway
Tēnā koe,
Can you provide a list of currently recognised or proposed Ngāpuhi hapū groupings in Hokianga and Bay of
Islands, and contact points for engagement?
Ngā mihi
Mark.
66
Document 25
Wai 1896 documents in the Wai 1040 Record of Inquiry
Statements of Claim
Wai 1896 Statement of Claim = Wai 1896, 1.1.1 (Wai 1040, 1.1.306), 26 August 2008
Wai 1040, 1.1.306.pdf
Claim refers to “the descendants of Patuone of NGA PUHI” (p. 1) but does not mention
Hapi Waka or Hohaia Patuone.
Claim refers to “Patuone’s grant at Mahurangi”, which presumably refers to a Crown
grant, but does not give any further details on Crown grants. (p.14)
Claim makes a number of allegations regarding succession. The Crown is alleged to
have allowed “Loss of records associated with their heritage, property rights, interests
and succession of Nga Puhi as an iwi” (p. 3) “Generation or acceptance of inaccurate
and misleading records and evidence associated with the heritage, property rights,
interests and succession of Nga Puhi as an iwi” (p. 3), “Loss of records associated with
the heritage, property rights and succession as rangatira of the iwi Nga Puhi” (p. 7) and
“Generation of inaccurate and misleading records and evidence associated with the
heritage, property rights and succession of the iwi Nga Puhi” (p. 7).
The claim also alleges the Crown has lost records and not properly inquired into other
records presented in relation to Ngā Puhi claims.
No specific evidence (i.e. reference to primary documents or oral history) is presented
to support these allegations.
No specific evidence (i.e. reference to primary documents or oral history) is presented
on named blocks.
The Statement of Claim includes an appendix that sets out ten specific examples of the
claimants' grievances. The Crown is stated to have:
- Confiscated land during the Waikato War in which Ngāpuhi had interests (It is not
clear which areas are being referred to but this may be referring to South
Auckland lands);
- Felled and extracted timber from Kaipara, Riverhead Forest and the upper
Waitemata without proper compensation;
- Acquired or authorised the transfer of land from Patuone’s Mahurangi grant,
despite land having inalienable status (Statement of Claim refers to this as ‘the
Napier purchase’ but I have yet to locate any details on any purchase identified
by this name);
- Allowed the removal and transfer of graves from Orakei;
- Polluted land, water, rivers and seabeds throughout Auckland and the North
Shore;
67
- Desecrated pā and other settlement sites and denied Ngāpuhi presence-
including at Stokes Point, Onewa pā and North Head;
- Compulsorily acquired Whenuapai and Hobsonville and sold parts of the land;
- Denied access to Te Onewa pā and other sites within Kauri Point Naval Reserve;
- Denied Ngāpuhi rights to land arising from their occupation of the Tamaki Makau
Rau isthmus ‘as recognised by Tainui and other tribes’;
- Alienated land in which Ngāpuhi had interests and disposed of it to statutory
bodies and agencies of the Crown. (P. 14)
Closing Submissions
Wai 1040, 3.3.262 G. Sharrock, Closing submissions of eleven Wai claims including Wai
1896, 19 May 2017. Wai 1040, 3.3.262.pdf
Contains the following on pp. 62-62:
“Wai 1896, Denis Hanley. The clear interests of Ngāpuhi in the Central and Southern
Mahurangi have been overridden by the Crown and the Crown has instead chosen to
recognise Ngāti Whātua as the pre-eminent entity with, Ngāti Paoa, Ngatai, and
Kawerau being recognised to a lesser extent. The fact that Patuone lived on land at
Takapuna at Waiwhariki for many years, along with his kāinga opposite Kawau Island
and in addition to the other places he resided in, including Waiheke and the Southern
Coromandel as well as the Bay of Islands, has grievously prejudiced the Ngāpuhi/Ngai
Te Wake/Ngāti Hau interests in Mahurangi. The Crown has very specifically chosen to
engage with its champion Ngāti Whātua and sold land in Mahurangi to Ngāti Whātua
while the hearings for Mahurangi are continuing.”
No other evidence is presented to support these allegations.
Wai 1040, 3.3.324 G. Sharrock, Closing submissions of eleven Wai claims including Wai
1896, 30 June 2017. Wai 1040, 3.3.324.pdf
Nothing specific on Patuone descendants, land blocks, Crown grants or succession.
Briefs of Evidence specifically relating to Wai 1896:
Wai 1040, K15 (b), Brief of Evidence (no. 2) of Dr. Anthony John Packington-Hall, 2
February 2014, Wai 1040, K15(b).pdf
Evidence for Wai 1896
States of the claimant, Denis Hanley, “Claimants descent from Hapiwaka daughter of
Patuone of the Ngati Hao hapu of Nga Puhi and Te Hoia”. (p.1)
Focuses on Patuone’s association with the Waiwharariki Block, central Takapuna.
68
Wai 1040, K15 (c), Suggested Sites for Tribunal Visits, Dr. Anthony John Packington-Hall,
3 February 2014 Wai 1040, K15(c).pdf
Sites suggested include Waiwharariki = Patuone’s pā in Takapuna.
Wai 1040, AA10(a), List of Appendices to Evidence of Dr. Anthony John Packington-Hall,
25 October 2016: Wai 1040, AA010(a).pdf
Includes Appendix 7 (3 pages) Wai 1896 (Denis Hanley)
Draft Brief of Evidence Patuone
and the Crown in the Southern Mahurangi & Gulf Islands Inquiry District by A.J.
Packington-Hall.
Inquiry hearing transcripts:
Wai 1040, 4.1.12, Hearing Week 7, Held at North Harbour Stadium, Albany, Mahurangi,
10 to 13 February 2014. WAI 1040, 4.1.12.pdf
Evidence of A. Packington-Hall pp. 811-829.
Other witnesses at this hearing who discuss Patuone in North Shore Auckland include:
Peter McBurney, Pierre Lyndon, Robin Whanga, Rihari Dargaville and Rhoda Hohepa
Research Reports:
For further information on Patuone in North Shore Auckland see:
Wai 1040, A36, P. McBurney, Traditional History Overview of the Mahurangi and Gulf
Islands Districts, Mahurangi and Gulf Islands Districts Collective Committee/CFRT,
2010, Chapter 8. Wai 1040, A036.pdf
More recent amendments:
Wai 1040, AA170 (Wai 1896, 1.1.1[a]) Amended Statement of Claim for Wai 1896,
submitted by Mark Thomson, 4 December 2025. Wai 1040, AA170.pdf
Notes:
“This Amended Statement of Claim is submitted for WAI 1896 by Mark Thomson, a
direct descendant of Hapi Waka, daughter of Eruera Maihi Patuone, and member of the
wider whānau of Patuone, Tamati Waka Nene (Hapi Waka and her brother Hone Waka
were whangai to Nene as he couldhave no children), and their brother Wiremu Waka
Turau (Died without issue).”
The descendants of Hapi Waka have been excluded from succession to the interests of:
69
• Hone Waka (died without issue)
• Hohaia Patuone
• Wiremu Waka Turau
• Eruera Maihi Patuone (Takapuna Grant)
And from the following blocks:
Takapuna (110-acre Crown Grant) – Tāmaki Makaurau
• Waitaroto – Hokianga
• Tarakihi (Te Kawakawa) – Hokianga
• Wahamarangai (Block 1) – Hokianga
• Wahamarangai (Block 2) – Hokianga
• Waihiri – Hokianga
• Whakateterekia – Hokianga
• Whakatiwai (ancestral pā of Te Kawehau) – Hauraki / Marutūāhu rohe
Further information from emails:
Email: Mark Thomson-Pono to Minister Goldsmith 24 March 2026
Includes the following:
The claim is being advanced on a land-block basis and includes, among others:
•
Takapuna (110-acre Crown Grant to Patuone) – one of the most important blocks
in the claim
•
Waitaroto Block 1 – large Hokianga block
•
Tarakihi (Te Kawakawa)
•
Wahamarangai (Blocks 1 and 2)
•
Waihiri
•
Whakateterekia
•
Manga Karamu
•
Te Toke (Waihou)
•
Pukoro (Waihou)
•
Waihou 2782 Tai Kawhanga
•
Waikoropupu Nos. 1, 2 and 3 (Waihou)
70
Waihou 2782 Tai
No info located as
No info located as yet
Kawhanga
yet
Waikoropupu No.1 Eastern Hokianga
Archives NZ, R23280801. Crown purchase deed
issued 1879 for Waikoropupu no.1 to Hohaia
Patuone and 26 others.
Waikoropupu No.2 Eastern Hokianga
Archives NZ, R23280802. Crown purchase deed
issued 1879 for Waikoropupu no.2 to Hohaia
Patuone and 10 others.
Waikoropupu No.3 Eastern Hokianga
Archives NZ, R23280801. Crown purchase deed
issued 1879 for Waikoropupu no.1 to Hohaia
Patuone and 7 others.
Kauri-roa
Hokianga
CT in Archives NZ, R25285205. Tamati Waka sole
owner. Issued 1866.
Moturoa Island
Bay of Islands?
No info found
72
Document 26
From:
Mark Thomson
To:
Wynne, Sonya
Cc:
Registrar, WT; [email address]
Subject:
Re: WAI 1896 – Request for Tribunal Direction Regarding Ongoing Prejudice and Settlement Progression
Date:
Thursday, 18 June 2026 5:26:08 pm
Ano, Sonya,
This response continues the pattern of non-answers that has characterised our engagement with Te Tari Whakatau.
You continue to direct us to engage with emerging Ngāpuhi structures while simultaneously confirming that:
“We are not aware of any recognised authority for Ngāti Hao.”
This raises an obvious question.
How exactly are we expected to engage with a recognised Ngāti Hao authority when Te Tari Whakatau itself confirms no such authority
presently exists?
You continue to tell us to participate in a process without identifying who we are supposed to engage with, who represents our interests, or
where WAI 1896 sits within that process.
You state that WAI 1896 is a Ngāpuhi claim.
We have never disputed our whakapapa connections to Ngāpuhi.
The issue is that WAI 1896 is a whānau claim concerning specific descendants, specific interests, and specific lands. Simply relabelling it a
“Ngāpuhi claim” does not answer any of the questions we have repeatedly asked regarding representation, settlement pathway, or treatment
of those interests.
You state that no Ngāpuhi claims have been settled.
That was not the question.
The question was whether settlements have occurred in areas expressly identified within WAI 1896, including Auckland, North Shore,
Takapuna, Mahurangi and Kaipara interests.
You acknowledge that settlements have occurred in Auckland and Kaipara.
You do not explain how WAI 1896 interests within those areas were considered.
You do not explain whether WAI 1896 was consulted.
You do not explain whether WAI 1896 was assessed.
You do not explain how those interests are now intended to be addressed.
You state that geographically diverse interests can be accommodated within Areas of Interest.
Again, that was not the question.
The question was how WAI 1896’s geographically dispersed interests will actually be accommodated in practice.
No answer is provided.
You state that Ngāpuhi hapū are forming into a number of groupings.
Again, this does not answer the question.
Which grouping does the Crown presently consider WAI 1896 belongs within?
No answer is provided.
Which grouping does the Crown consider represents the descendants of Patuone?
No answer is provided.
Can descendants of Patuone participate in forming or leading a grouping?
No answer is provided.
How are Takapuna interests intended to be addressed?
No answer is provided.
How are North Shore interests intended to be addressed?
No answer is provided.
How are Mahurangi interests intended to be addressed?
No answer is provided.
73
What concerns us most is that Te Tari Whakatau continues to insist that WAI 1896 must engage with a process while being unable to
identify who represents us, where we belong, how our interests will be addressed, or how our claim fits within the framework being
proposed.
That is not a settlement pathway.
It is simply a direction to enter an undefined process and hope our interests are dealt with at some future date.
After more than eighteen years since WAI 1896 was filed, that is not an adequate answer.
Given the length of time WAI 1896 has remained unresolved, and given that many of these questions have now been asked repeatedly over a
number of months, we request a substantive response to each of the matters raised above within five working days.
If Te Tari Whakatau is unable or unwilling to provide direct answers, please identify the individual, office, or decision-maker responsible
for providing those answers.
Should a substantive response not be received within that timeframe, we will proceed on the basis that Te Tari Whakatau is either unwilling
or unable to address these matters and will place this correspondence, together with the ongoing absence of answers, before the Waitangi
Tribunal and any other appropriate oversight, legal, or review processes available to us.
We consider these matters fundamental to the future treatment of WAI 1896 and believe they require urgent clarification rather than further
generic references to developing processes and future engagement.
Ngā manaakitanga
Mark
On 18 Jun 2026, at 5:08 PM, Wynne, Sonya <[email address]> wrote:
Tēnā koe Mark,
Thank you for your email below which we have responded to in detail in a separate email.
Ngā mihi, nā
Sonya Wynne
SENIOR ANALYST
CEL: DDI: 04 914 3070
WEB: https://whakatau.govt.nz
Office of Treaty Settlements and Takutai Moana—
Te Tari Whakatau
Level 2, Justice Centre, 19 Aitken Street, SX10111, Wellington 6011
From: Mark Thomson
section 9(2)(a)
Sent: Tuesday, 16 June 2026 5:26 pm
To: Wynne, Sonya <[email address]>; Registrar, WT <[email address]>; [email address]
Subject: WAI 1896 – Request for Tribunal Direction Regarding Ongoing Prejudice and Settlement Progression
Tēnā koutou,
I am increasingly concerned that despite repeated correspondence with both the Tribunal and Te Tari Whakatau,
fundamental issues affecting WAI 1896 remain unresolved while the Crown publicly confirms that Ngāpuhi settlement
negotiations continue to advance.
I note recent public statements by Treaty Negotiations Minister Paul Goldsmith that ten groups representing northern
hapū have now been earmarked to join settlement negotiations.
This raises a serious concern for WAI 1896.
Since filing in 2008, WAI 1896 has remained an active registered claim. The claimant group has repeatedly sought
clarification regarding:
* how WAI 1896 is intended to be addressed;
* whether WAI 1896 is considered represented within any settlement structure;
* who, if anyone, the Crown considers represents Ngāti Hao interests;
* how the Crown intends to address interests identified in WAI 1896 extending beyond a conventional Ngāpuhi
framework;
74
* and how the claimant group’s interests are intended to be protected as settlement negotiations progress.
Those questions remain unanswered.
I must also note that my recent correspondence to the Tribunal has not received any substantive response. At the same
time, Te Tari Whakatau continues to provide process-based responses without addressing the specific concerns raised
by the claimant group.
The result is that a registered claim filed in 2008 remains without a clearly articulated settlement pathway while public
statements indicate negotiations are progressing elsewhere.
The claimant group considers this situation unacceptable.
The claimant group is increasingly concerned that WAI 1896 is being left without clarity regarding representation,
settlement pathway, recognition, or treatment while decisions affecting the wider settlement landscape continue to be
developed.
Accordingly, I respectfully request that the Tribunal advise:
1. What procedural avenue is available to WAI 1896 to formally raise concerns regarding ongoing prejudice arising from
the Crown’s treatment of the claim;
2. Whether the Tribunal considers it appropriate for a registered claimant group to remain without clarity regarding its
place within the settlement framework while negotiations continue to progress;
3. What mechanism exists for WAI 1896 to seek urgent consideration of these issues before further prejudice occurs.
This correspondence is intended to formally record the claimant group’s position that the continued absence of clarity,
engagement, and resolution is itself becoming a matter of prejudice to WAI 1896.
I request that this correspondence be placed on the WAI 1896 record.
Nāku noa, nā
Mark Thomson
Named Claimant
WAI 1896
75
