Waitangi Tribunal Thursdays: Wai 3
29/05/2025
Firstly, a quick correction and some transparency. My last Waitangi Tribunal post had a couple of errors. So, thank you to those who offered to peer review some of this work. I’m ever grateful, and in advance, I say thank you.
Secondly, thanks also to the trolls who hate this series: I’m thrilled to know these reports live rent-free in your head. Keep emailing me. I’m gathering an interesting set of IP addresses.
Now, this week’s post is short and sharp. A reader sent me Wai 3.
It’s worth covering, not only because it’s brief, but because these early reports matter. They show the ground being laid, the Tribunal’s early methods, and how local concerns were documented.
In 1977, the Housing Corporation proposed discharging sewage from 45 state houses directly into Welcome Bay, Tauranga. Local mana whenua, through the Tauranga Executive of Māori Committees, objected. They raised concerns about the destruction of shellfish beds (titiko and kuharu), and about the spiritual and historical significance of Rangataua.
The claim was lodged in June 1977. But by August, the claimants asked to withdraw it. By then, the Housing Corporation had already abandoned the discharge plan, given up the water rights, and moved to a tanked waste system. Eventually, the houses were connected to the city’s sewage network.
The Tribunal noted this, recorded that no further correspondence had been received, and issued a short memo closing the matter.
There was no inquiry. No breach found. But still, a quiet moment of significance. It shows how Māori communities used the Tribunal early on, and how, whether directly or not, the policy shifted in response. We can’t say for sure that the claim caused the reversal. But the timing is hard to ignore.
That’s Wai 3. Next week we are off to the Kaituna River.
Te Rā Whakamana: Operational Capac …
Schick, then Ryan and Gill (2011), and Tenbensel et al (2026) This week, the series reads three pieces of local implementation scholarship alongside one another, written across the better part of three decades and from quite different vantage points. There is Allen Schick’s 1996 review of the reforms, and the warnings it carried. There is Bill Ryan and Derek Gill’s later account, written i...
Read moreAdministrative Burden: The Woman …
When the State Designs for a Person Who Does Not Exist This is the fourth post in a series about what it actually costs to navigate the state. Last month, I examined how burdens fall hardest on the least resourced. I also introduced the research on “deservingness”. Today, I turn to gender. The hypothesis that the unpaid labour of navigating the state falls disproportionately on women, and ...
Read moreLoose Threads: The Other Allison
E te whānau. A longer Loose Thread this week, prompted by a moment in Beijing that has sent half the commentariat scrambling for their Thucydides. Graham Allison is having his moment in the foreign policy sun. But the Allison I want to talk about is the one almost nobody remembers. This post starts with his trap, notes who was already using it, and then turns to an argument about gover...
Read more