Search Inquiry Documents

This stage 1 report concerns a claim about Maori proprietary rights in freshwater bodies and geothermal resources and the Government's plan to sell shares in State-owned enterprises.

On Friday 28 November 2025, the Waitangi Tribunal released the pre-publication version of The Interim Report on the Crown’s Draft Geothermal Strategy for stage 3 of the National Freshwater and Geothermal Resources (Wai 2358) Inquiry.

The Tribunal had held a discrete hearing on 7 November on the Crown’s draft geothermal development strategy: From the Ground Up – A Draft Strategy to Unlock New Zealand’s Geothermal Potential. In the hearing, the Crown noted the Minister’s objective to finalise the strategy later this year for Cabinet approval. The strategy was developed by the Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment and has a set of strategic outcomes and an action plan aimed at doubling New Zealand’s geothermal energy by 2040. The Tribunal’s interim report aims to assist the parties, Crown and Māori, in their deliberations before the strategy is finalised.

The Tribunal noted that most of the claimants at the hearing supported the draft strategy but disagreed with some of its content. The strategy is a very promising initiative in terms of Māori economic development, the Tribunal stated. If successful, it would make a significant contribution to developing the Māori economy as proposed. The Tribunal found that the opportunity for both Treaty partners to benefit from geothermal development through the strategy is consistent with the Treaty principle of mutual benefit. However, the report notes that there are few specific opportunities in the strategy for iwi and hapū as distinct from Māori landowners and that the specific actions for Māori economic development in the action plan are significantly underdone. The Tribunal left it to the parties in their ongoing engagement to consider what particular Māori-specific actions should be added to the plan in order to achieve its development outcomes for the Māori economy, which in turn will increase the strategic outcomes of regional development and geothermal energy production.

The Tribunal further found that the strategy concerns the development of geothermal taonga of immense significance to Māori, the exercise by Māori of tino rangatiratanga and kaitiakitanga in respect of those taonga, and Crown–Māori cooperation on a major economic development platform. The Tribunal therefore found that the Crown’s decision to exclude the Treaty from the strategy would be a Treaty breach. The Tribunal did not consider this exclusion reasonable when the same Ministry team and Minister included the Treaty in the Minerals Strategy seven months earlier. In particular, the Tribunal found that the Treaty partnership, which requires the utmost good faith and mutual respect of each other’s authority, should be reflected in any strategy aimed at the Crown and Māori working together to achieve important outcomes. The Tribunal found that there is still time for this and other omissions to be corrected before the draft strategy is finalised. It proposes that a specific Treaty partnership mechanism or mechanisms for implementing and guiding the strategy be added.

On the specific issue of kaitiakitanga, the report notes that the Treaty principle of active protection requires the Crown to actively protect taonga, and that this is a particularly serious issue in a strategy designed to double geothermal energy in 15 years. The Tribunal found that protection was not integrated in the action plan. It found that the plan needed strengthening to ensure practical actions, such as national environmental standards for geothermal development and kaitiaki monitoring, are carried out. The Tribunal also found that the Crown incorrectly characterised the geothermal taonga in the strategy as limited to ‘surface features’ (such as geysers) and found that this would breach the Treaty unless the definition is corrected.

Ko te Ngawha te kanohi o te taonga, engari ko tona whatumanawa,

ko tona mana hauora, nō raro.

While the Ngawha (geothermal springs) is the visible ‘eye’ of the taonga,

its true essence and life force comes from its deep, hidden ‘heart’ from below.

The report states that the issue of Māori rights and interests, in particular the question of Māori customary title or ownership issues, needs to be addressed. As this interim report has been released part way though the Tribunal’s hearings, the Tribunal said that it is not yet in a position to make findings on these issues. The Tribunal welcomed the Crown’s inclusion of an action to consider the findings and recommendations of its stage 3 report when this is released. In the meantime, the Tribunal said that the Crown should engage directly with the groups who hold those rights.

Finally, the Tribunal found that, given the degree of Māori support for the draft strategy but the disagreement on specific aspects, the Crown will breach the principle of partnership if it does not now take the time to work through the completion of the strategy with Māori to resolve the matters raised in the Tribunal’s findings and any other matters. The Tribunal recommended that the Crown take the time necessary to do so.

Whaia Te Mana Motuhake/In Pursuit of Mana Motuhake: Report on the Māori Community Development  Act Claim, released on 5 December 2014, is the outcome of Wai 2417, a claim brought by the co-chairs of the New Zealand Māori Council and representatives of district Māori councils.
The claim focused on two issues: the Crown’s ongoing review of the Māori Community Development Act 1962 and the Crown’s role in the development and administration of the Māori wardens project, launched in 2007.
The Tribunal held an urgent hearing at Pipitea Marae in Wellington from 18 to 20 March 2014. The panel appointed to hear the claims comprised Deputy Chief Judge Caren Fox (presiding), Ron Crosby, Miriama Evans, Sir Hīrini Moko Mead, and Tania Simpson.
The Māori Community Development Act governs the New Zealand Māori Council, the district Māori councils, and Māori wardens. In 2009, the Minister of Māori Affairs instructed Te Puni Kōkiri / the Ministry of Māori Development to carry out a review of the Act. A report by the Māori Affairs select committee in 2010 recommended changes to the Act but advised that extensive consultation should be carried out with Māori before any proposed reforms were introduced.
In 2013, Te Puni Kōkiri decided to proceed with consultation hui on the 1962 Act, despite the objections of the newly appointed New Zealand Māori Council that it should be allowed to lead the review into its legislation. The Tribunal found that Te Puni Kōkiri’s decision to continue consultations in September 2013 was in contravention of Treaty principles.
The Tribunal also looked at the Crown’s development and administration of the Māori wardens project. The project, launched in 2007, provides funding, training, vehicles, and uniforms to support the voluntary community work of Māori wardens.
Originally, an advisory group and then a governance board provided Māori community oversight of the project, but since early 2011 this critical supervision has been absent. The Tribunal found this lack of provision for Māori community input breached the principles of the Treaty.
The Tribunal recommended that any future review of the Māori Community Development Act be led by Māori – specifically the New Zealand Māori Council – and that all reasonable costs flowing from the review and consultation process should be met by the Crown. Once the council had developed its own proposals for legislative reform and carried out extensive consultation with Māori communities, then it and the Crown should collaborate to reach a negotiated agreement.
The Tribunal further recommended that the Māori wardens project continue but that an interim advisory group or governance board be appointed from among the New Zealand Māori Council and Māori wardens to provide Māori community oversight of the funding, training, and other support delivered under the project.
 

On Friday 11 March 2016, the Waitangi Tribunal released He Kura Whenua ka Rokohanga: Report on Claims about the Reform of Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 in pre-publication format. The report is the outcome of three claims from Māori landowners.

Marise Lant, the named claimant for Wai 2478, is a former Māori Land Court staffer. Her claim was supported by Te Whānau a Kai. Cletus Maanu Paul, the named claimant for Wai 2480, is the co-chair of the New Zealand Māori Council and the chair of the Mataatua District Māori Council. His claim was made on behalf of the Mataatua District Māori Council and Moewhare. The Wai 2512 claimants were Lorraine Norris, Michael Beazley, William Kapea, Owen Kingi, Ani Taniwha, Justyne Te Tana, Pouri Harris, Vivienne Taueki, and Tamati Reid. They submitted their claim on behalf of a range of hapū from around the North Island.

The Tribunal hearings took place in Wellington from 11 to 13 November 2015 and on 9 December 2015. The panel appointed to hear the claims comprised Ron Crosby (presiding), Miriama Evans, Professor Rawinia Higgins, Professor Sir Hirini Mead, and Dr Grant Phillipson.

In June 2012, the Associate Minister of Māori Affairs appointed an independent review panel to review Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993. After the panel submitted its final report to the Associate Minister in July 2013, the Crown accepted the panel’s recommendations that the 1993 Act should be repealed and replaced by a new legislative regime with owner autonomy as the central focus. After nearly two years of development, the Crown released an exposure draft of the new Bill in May 2015 and invited submissions. The Bill proposed to replace existing protections for landowners exercised by the Māori Land Court with a new regime empowering ‘participating owners’.

In its report, the Tribunal considered both the review and reform process and the provisions of the new Bill, which the Crown intended to introduce to Parliament in March 2016.

The Tribunal found that the Crown would be in breach of Treaty principles if it did not ensure that there was properly-informed, broad-based support from Māori for the new Bill to proceed. Māori landowners, and their whānau, hapū, and iwi, would be prejudiced if the 1993 Act were repealed ‘against their wishes, and without ensuring adequate and appropriate arrangements for all the matters governed by that Act’.

With regard to the provisions of the Bill, the Tribunal noted that Treaty principles do not require any one specific form of protection mechanism, so long as it is effective and has the properly informed, broad-based support of Māori. However, the Tribunal concluded that a number of the Bill’s provisions nullified or weakened the mechanisms intended to ensure the retention of Māori land. That was inconsistent with the Crown’s duty of active protection.

Other aspects of the Bill relating to succession and compulsory dispute resolution, the Tribunal found, were also inconsistent with Treaty principles.

The Tribunal recommended that the Crown avoid prejudice to Māori by engaging further nationally via hui and written submissions, after ensuring that Māori are properly informed by means of empirical research. The Tribunal also made a number of other general and specific recommendations to the Crown concerning both the review and reform process and the new Bill.

The Ngāpuhi Mandate Inquiry Report was released in pre-publication form on 11 September 2015. It was the outcome of an inquiry into 15 claims, primarily from Ngāpuhi hapū and collectives of hapū, relating to the Crown’s recognition of the Tūhoronuku Independent Mandated Authority (the Tūhoronuku IMA) as having a mandate to enter negotiations to settle the historical claims of all Ngāpuhi.

The hearings, held under urgency, took place at Waitangi in December 2014 and Wellington in March 2015. The panel appointed to hear the claims was comprised of Judge Sarah Reeves (presiding officer), Dr Robyn Anderson, Mr Kihi Ngatai, and Lady Tureiti Moxon.

On 14 February 2014 the Crown officially recognised the Tūhoronuku IMA as having secured a mandate from the people of Ngāpuhi to enter settlement negotiations on their behalf. The claimants alleged that the Crown had pre-determined its decision to give this recognition. They did not support the Tūhoronuku IMA and argued that it undermined the rangatiratanga of their hapū. Of particular concern to the claimants was the inability for hapū to choose not to be represented by the Tūhoronuku IMA. This issue was exacerbated, in their view, by their inability to control who they were represented by within the structure of the Tūhoronuku IMA.

In the report, the Tribunal found that the Crown had not pre-determined its decision recognise the mandate secured by the Tūhoronuku IMA. It stated that the Crown’s involvement in the mandating process was typified by regular, genuine, and high-level engagement over a period of years and that there was ample evidence of the parties engaging in good faith to accommodate differences.

The Tribunal went on to find the strength of hapū autonomy is a defining characteristic of Ngāpuhi. As such, any entity seeking to represent Ngāpuhi in settlement negotiations had to produce clear evidence of hapū support for its mandate. The Crown had a primary Treaty duty to actively protect the rangatiratanga of Ngāpuhi hapū in deciding how and by whom they would be represented in settlement negotiations. The Crown failed in this duty by recognising the mandate of the Tūhoronuku IMA in the absence of clear evidence of hapū support for its mandate. Further, the structure and processes of the Tūhoronuku IMA undermined hapū and their ability to make crucial decisions affecting the settlement of their claims.

The Tribunal identified flaws in the structure and processes of the Tūhoronuku IMA and found the Crown to have breached the Treaty. It did not, however, believe that the Crown should withdraw its recognition of the mandate and require that a new mandate process take place. The Tribunal believed that there was broad support within Ngāpuhi for negotiations towards settlement and that flaws identified in the Tūhoronuku IMA could be remedied. Noting that ‘Strength comes from choice, not from lack of it’ the Tribunal recommended that the Crown halt negotiations with the Tūhoronuku IMA to give Ngāpuhi the opportunity to address the issues it has identified. In particular, the Tribunal considered it vitally important that the hapū of Ngāpuhi have the opportunity to determine whether they wish to continue being represented by the Tūhoronuku IMA.

Motiti: Report on the Te Moutere o Motiti Inquiry addresses a claim that the Crown breached the principles of Te Tiriti by failing to recognise Ngā Hapū o te Moutere o Motiti as an independent tribal group who warrant their own Treaty settlement, instead wrongly assuming they were covered by the Ngāti Awa settlement.

The inquiry centred on a 2015–16 process, termed the ‘kinship review’, by which the Crown sought to assess the claimants’ assertion that they are a distinct tribal group, separate from Ngāti Awa, and their historical Treaty claims thus remain unsettled.

The central issue for inquiry was therefore whether the Crown, through its kinship review, properly informed itself of the identity of the tangata whenua of Motiti.

The inquiry panel comprised Judge Miharo Armstrong (presiding), Dr Ann Parsonson, Associate Professor Tom Roa, and Tania Simpson. The hearings began in May 2018 and were held over five separate weeks in Tauranga and Whakatāne, concluding in September 2019.

In order to address the central issue, the Tribunal had to consider the more fundamental question of who the tangata whenua of Motiti are. The Tribunal found that Te Patuwai and Te Whānau a Tauwhao are the tangata whenua of Motiti, and that Te Patuwai affiliate to Ngāti Awa.
In addition, the Tribunal found that any historical claims to Motiti based on descent from Te Hapū were settled as a Ngāti Awa historical claim through the deed of settlement and the Ngāti Awa Claims Settlement Act 2005.

Concerning the kinship review, the Tribunal found that, although its outcome was a correct assessment of the issues before the Crown, the process the Crown used to engage with the tangata of Motiti was flawed. Given the importance of tribal identity and affiliation in te ao Māori, the Crown should have approached the review in a more culturally appropriate way, the Tribunal considered. The Crown fell short of this requirement by failing to fully engage with all groups at the outset, failing to invite all groups to participate in the process’s initial design, and failing to support and engage in a tikanga-based process to resolve the questions under review, instead making an assessment of them itself.

Though the process was flawed, the Tribunal nevertheless found the Crown acted appropriately overall. It conducted the review in a largely open and transparent way, and took corrective action during the review to make it more inclusive, including meeting affected groups earlier than planned, and supporting all groups to discuss the issues with each other. In these and other respects, the Tribunal found the Crown acted in good faith, and ultimately met its duty of consultation to all groups.

Consequently, the Tribunal did not find that the kinship review process, considered as a whole, breached the principles of partnership and equal treatment.

In light of the process’s flaws, however, it offered suggestions about how the Crown should approach disputes about tribal identity in general. It suggested that:

• In the first instance, the Crown’s role is to support all groups concerned to explore these questions themselves and try to reach agreement according to tikanga.
• Tangata whenua should be involved in the design of this process, and in the design of any research process initiated to help resolve the dispute. The Crown should consider how it can assist in this work.
• The Crown should be mindful that its proper role in the research process, in the first instance at least, may be to collate and share relevant information with the parties concerned, rather than to undertake analysis of the information with a view to reaching conclusions itself.
• If discussion between the groups concerned breaks down or yields no agreement, the Crown may make its own assessment of the evidence and comment on whether it considers it conclusive or not, and why. However, where the question of identity is highly contested, the Crown should be very cautious about proceeding. Other independent facilitation or resolution processes may need to be considered.

In response to the Crown’s request for guidance on how to engage with the tangata whenua of Motiti, the Tribunal also offered suggestions about how it should engage with Te Patuwai in respect of the island (its suggestions did not concern the Crown’s engagement with Te Whānau a Tauwhao, as they were not a focus of this inquiry). It suggested that, on all issues concerning Motiti, the Crown should first engage with the Te Patuwai Tribal Committee to receive direction on which entities it should engage with – marae, hapū, or iwi – about that issue. The Te Patuwai Tribal Committee would connect the Crown with the relevant representatives of the marae, the hapū, or the iwi as appropriate.

The Report on the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, released on 5 May 2016, is the result on an urgent inquiry into a number of claims made by Māori that the Crown has breached the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi in joining the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA).

The TPPA is a free trade agreement between New Zealand and 11 other Pacific Rim countries, including the United States and Japan. The Government negotiated the inclusion of a clause in the TPPA that allows it to take ‘measures it deems necessary to accord more favourable treatment of Māori… including in fulfilment of the Treaty of Waitangi’.

Claimants before the Tribunal said that this ‘Treaty exception clause’ would not protect their Treaty rights, and that the TPPA gave too much power to foreign investors.

The time available to the Tribunal to report was limited, and so it confined its inquiry to two issues:

• Whether the Treaty of Waitangi exception clause is the effective protection of Māori interests it is said to be; and
• What Māori engagement and input is now required over steps needed to ratify the TPPA, including by way of legislation or changes to Government policies which may affect Māori.

The Tribunal found that the exception clause should ‘provide a reasonable degree of protection to Māori interests’. The inclusion of a Treaty clause in the TPPA, and in earlier free trade agreements, was ‘to the credit of successive New Zealand governments’, the Tribunal said.

Nevertheless, the Tribunal expressed concern about the right of foreign investors to bring claims against the New Zealand Government. Under the TPPA, an investor may choose to bring a claim against the country in which they have invested, if it thinks the investment has been damaged by the State. This takes place under a system known as investor–state dispute settlement (ISDS).

An ISDS panel decides the case and can order compensation, although it cannot order the country to change its laws or practices.

The Tribunal was concerned that the right to bring ISDS claims, or the threat or apprehension of them, ‘may have a chilling effect on the Crown’s willingness or ability to meet its Treaty obligations or to adopt otherwise Treaty-consistent measures’.

In addressing its second issue, of what steps the Crown should now take, the Tribunal also looked at the adequacy of the Crown’s consultation with Māori before the TPPA text was completed. It was critical of the process, but made no findings on that topic.

The Tribunal suggested that question of a possible chilling effect, as well as an appropriate Treaty clause for future trade agreements, should be the subject of further dialogue between the Crown and Māori.

The Wai 2522 claim was lodged in June 2015 by Dr Papaarangi Reid, Moana Jackson, Angeline Greensill, Hone Harawira, Rikirangi Gage, and Moana Maniapoto. The claim, together with eight others, was heard by the Tribunal in March 2016. In addition, many Māori from throughout the country were recognised as interested parties in the inquiry.

The Tribunal comprised Judge Michael Doogan (presiding officer), David Cochrane, Tania Simpson, Tā Tāmati Reedy, and Sir Douglas Kidd.

The Waitangi Tribunal has released The Report on the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, concluding the inquiry into the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) which has proceeded over three stages.

The inquiry panel comprised Judge Michael Doogan (presiding officer), David Cochrane, Professor Susy Frankel, Tā Hirini Moko Mead, Kim Ngarimu, and Tania Simpson. Hearings were held at the Waitangi Tribunal’s hearing room in Wellington from 17 to 19 November 2020.

Originally, stage 3 of the inquiry included issues relating to engagement, secrecy, and data sovereignty. The issues of engagement and secrecy were resolved through mediation and, as a result, the majority of claims were withdrawn. The two remaining claims contained pleadings relevant to the remaining issue; data sovereignty. As such, the report asks one question: What (if any) aspects of the e-commerce chapter of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership are inconsistent with the Crown’s obligations under te Tiriti/the Treaty?

The Tribunal concluded that the risk to Māori interests arising from the electronic commerce (e-commerce) provisions are significant and that reliance on exceptions and exclusions in the agreement to mitigate that risk falls short of the Crown’s duty of active protection. As a result, the Tribunal found  that the Crown has failed to meet the Tiriti/Treaty standard of active protection and that this failure constitutes a breach of the Tiriti/Treaty principles of partnership and active protection.

Having found Tiriti/Treaty breach, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that it would not be appropriate to make recommendations in the circumstances of this case. This is largely because, over the five years since the inquiry began, a significant shift in the Crown’s position in response to claims has ocurred and a number of processes are underway, or in place, to address concerns. Additionally, the resolution of issues relating to engagement and secrecy through mediation gave the Tribunal significant reason to pause and think carefully about what (if any) recommendations it could make that would remove or mitigate prejudice in ways not already addressed as a result of commitments or processes already underway.

Having considered the relief sought by the claimants, the Tribunal declined to recommend that further e-commerce negotiations be suspended until an effective or proper regime had been designed. The Tribunal agreed with the Trade for All Advisory Board that there is a need for a comprehensive review of Aotearoa New Zealand’s policy and that, until such  review is carried out, the Government should avoid locking the country into any fixed negotiating positions. It is the Tribunal’s understanding that the Crown has accepted this recommendation and the review, which  engages Te Taumata and Ngā Toki Whakarururanga, is currently underway. The Tribunal also saw the recently announced Agreement in Principle between the United Kingdom and New Zealand, which will include a chapter on indigenous trade, as indicative of what is possible without freezing international negotiations altogether.

Overall, the Tribunal acknowledged there will be challenges ahead. However, it described these matters as best left for negotiation and dialogue between the Tiriti/Treaty partners in good faith and within the fora and processes now in place.

 

The Report on the Crown’s Review of the Plant Variety Rights Regime, released in May 2020, is the Tribunal’s stage 2 report for the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement inquiry (Wai 2522).

The original claims for this inquiry were lodged in June 2015 by Dr Papaarangi Reid, Moana Jackson, Angeline Greensill, Hone Harawira, Rikirangi Gage, and Moana Maniapoto. Negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) were underway when the claims were lodged.

The Tribunal decided to hear the claims in stages, and the stage 1 report, the Report on the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, was released on 5 May 2016.

For stage 2, the Tribunal considered whether the Crown’s process for engagement over the plant variety rights regime and its policy on whether or not New Zealand should accede to the Act of 1991 International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants were consistent with its Tiriti/Treaty obligations to Maori. The panel comprised Judge Michael Doogan (presiding), David Cochrane, Tā Hirini Moko Mead, Kim Ngarimu, and Tania Simpson, and the hearings took place from 4 to 6 December 2019.

The claimants said that the Crown’s process for engagement over the plant variety rights regime, and its policy on how to address UPOV 1991, were not consistent with its Tiriti/Treaty obligations of partnership and protection. The Crown argued that its engagement process, consistent with its CPTPPA obligations, was Tiriti/Treaty compliant. The Crown further argued that the outcomes of the review met, and exceeded, the relief originally sought by the claimants in this inquiry and that it has implemented the relevant Tribunal guidance as to what is necessary to meet its Tiriti/Treaty obligations.

The Tribunal found that the claims of Tiriti/Treaty breach in relation to these issues were not made out, and it supported certain aspects of the Crown’s policy. The Tribunal welcomed Cabinet’s decision to not only implement the relevant findings and recommendations of the Tribunal’s 2011 Ko Aotearoa Tēnei report but go further and provide additional measures to recognise and protect the interests of kaitiaki in taonga species and in non-indigenous species of significance.