Method
Right ≠ claim ≠
remedy ≠ jurisdiction.
Each settlement must be audited clause by clause.
A surviving customary or Treaty-derived right can coexist with a statutory bar on a historical claim for the Crown's earlier breach of that right. A mandate to negotiate can coexist with disagreement about hapū authority. A post-settlement governance entity can receive statutory assets and functions without becoming the source of ancestral mana.
Defined historical Crown claims, not automatically every underlying right.
Potentially Treaty, customary, aboriginal-title and mana/rangatiratanga interests, depending on the instrument.
Mandate, ratification and Parliament operate at different legal stages.
Yes. The 1992 fisheries settlement shows rights can be statutorily converted or deprived of independent legal effect.
Live investigation
Build the record
as we go.
Parts 01–08 are live now.
The remaining parts are deliberately left as open audit questions. They will be converted into source-controlled findings only after the relevant deeds, statutes, cases and policy records are tested.
The distinction between an underlying right, a historical claim, Crown liability, a remedy and the jurisdiction to obtain that remedy.
Part 02 · Rights survival · LiveDoes settlement extinguish mana motuhake, rangatiratanga or Te Tiriti rights? ↗Raukawa, Ngāi Tahu, Te Whānau a Apanui, Whakatōhea and the fisheries exception compared.
Part 03 · Mandate and consent · LiveWho can actually settle whose claims? ↗Mandate, hapū withdrawal, ratification, Haronga, Crown recognition and the later statutory effect of settlement legislation.
Part 04 · Redress quantum · LiveWhat exactly is the Crown paying for? ↗The Crown expressly does not calculate full historical economic loss. This part separates negotiated redress from damages and traces the fiscal-envelope and relativity architecture behind quantum.
Part 05 · Fiscal envelope and relativity ledger · LiveWhat do the 17% and 16.1% relativity clauses actually measure? ↗The deed-defined settlement pool, inclusions, exclusions, 1994-value calculation, five-yearly claims and the published payment ledger through 2025.
Part 06 · Fisheries rights conversion · LiveWhen did settlement change the legal effect of the underlying right? ↗Commercial fishing rights extinguished in the deed; current and future commercial claims closed by statute; non-commercial rights preserved in name but channelled into a regulatory legal regime.
Part 07 · PSGEs and authority · LiveAre PSGEs settlement representatives or successors to hapū authority? ↗Settlement asset authority, broad statutory representation and tikanga authority are separated using Tūhoe, Ngāi Tahu, Whakatōhea and fisheries examples.
Part 08 · Survival matrix · LiveWhat rights, claims and remedies survive after settlement? ↗Historical claims, post-1992 conduct, customary rights, MACA, tikanga, Tribunal jurisdiction, public law and settlement-implementation remedies mapped by source and forum.
Where historical finality ends and contemporary Crown conduct begins.
Test the constitutional proposition against express settlement wording rather than assumption.
Companion research
Connected to
the mandate crux.
This series sits beside the Nu Tireni constitutional evidence chain and the Nullity Audit. It does not assume that settlement validates or invalidates any wider sovereignty theory. It asks the narrower legal question: what did each instrument actually change?
Open Nu Tireni Part 30 ↗Open the Nullity Audit ↗