Search Inquiry Documents

On 29 April 2025, The Tribunal issued an interim report, The Oranga Tamariki (Section 7AA) Urgent Inquiry Report, in pre-publication form.

The report concerns claims submitted to the Tribunal under urgency regarding the Crown’s policy to repeal section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989. Section 7AA imposes specific duties on the chief executive of Oranga Tamariki so as to provide a practical commitment to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi

A key policy objective of section 7AA was to reduce the disproportionate number of Māori entering into care and to improve outcomes for those tamariki already in care. Under section 7AA, iwi or Māori organisations may enter into strategic partnerships with the chief executive. There are 10 strategic partnership agreements under section 7AA currently in place, as well as nine relationships with post-settlement governance entities, some of whom are also strategic partners.

The claimants and interested parties argued that the repeal of section 7AA and the absence of consultation with Māori and the Crown’s strategic partners breached the Crown’s Treaty duties.

Because of its interim status, the report contains no findings or recommendations but it raises three matters for the government’s consideration:

• the Tribunal’s concern that the government’s singular focus on the implementation of a commitment made in one of the coalition agreements has caused it to disregard its obligations under the Treaty;
• the Tribunal’s concern that the rushed repeal of section 7AA will cause actual harm; and
• the availability of a more principled way forward under section 448B of the Act.

The panel comprised Judge Michael Doogan (presiding), Kim Ngarimu, and Tā William Te Rangiua (Pou) Temara.

In May 2024, the Waitangi Tribunal granted an application for an urgent inquiry into claims concerning the Crown’s proposed policy changes to the Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Act 2021. The Tribunal confirmed that the inquiry would focus on whether the actions and policies of Government in altering the 2021 amendment Act were in breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

The panel for the urgent inquiry consisted of Judge Sarah Reeves (officer), Basil Morrison CNZM JP, and Kevin Prime, and the inquiry was conducted on the papers with no in-person hearing. The Tribunal’s report was released on 17 May 2024.

The Tribunal found that the Crown breached the principle of partnership (the duty to consult and act reasonably and in good faith and the duty of active protection) by prioritising commitments made in the 2023 coalition agreement in the development of Government policy without discussion or consultation with its Treaty partners. The Crown also failed to adequately inform itself of its Treaty obligations and to conduct adequate Treaty analysis during the policy development process.

In addition, the Tribunal found that the Crown failed to adequately protect Māori rights and interests by prioritising the coalition agreement over the desires and actions of Māori for dedicated local political representation. Combined with breaches of the principles of equity, mutual benefit, and options, the Tribunal found that these Treaty breaches caused significant prejudice to Māori.

The Tribunal recommended that the Crown stop the amendment process to allow proper consultation between the Treaty partners with a view to agreeing how Māori can exercise their tino rangatiratanga to determine dedicated representation at the local level. The Tribunal drew the Government’s attention to the existing provisions in the Local Electoral Act 2001 for representation reviews that would better enable councils to seek public views on all wards and constituencies at the same time, including Māori wards or constituencies.

On 13 September 2024, the Waitangi Tribunal released The Takutai Moana Act 2011 Urgent Inquiry Stage 1 Report (Wai 3400). The inquiry was granted urgency in the Waitangi Tribunal’s inquiry programme. The hearing was held in August 2024.

The Tribunal panel comprised Judge Miharo Armstrong (presiding), Ron Crosby, Professor Rawinia Higgins, and Tā Pou Temara. The report was the first report in a two-stage inquiry. This first stage considered the Treaty compliance of the policy development process that the Government followed in seeking to amend the Takutai Moana Act 2011, along with the proposed amendments, and whether these caused prejudice to Māori. The second stage will address the alleged mismanagement of funding for applications for customary marine title under the Act.

Overall, the Tribunal found that the Crown’s actions are such a gross breach of the Treaty that it is an illegitimate exercise of kāwanatanga. The Tribunal cautioned the Crown that, on the strength of the evidence it received, to proceed now on its current course would significantly endanger the Māori–Crown relationship.

To give effect to Treaty principles, the Tribunal recommended that:

• the Crown halt its current efforts to amend the Takutai Moana Act;
• the Crown make a genuine effort for meaningful engagement with Māori; and
• the focus of this engagement should be on the perceived issues of permissions for resource consents, rather than interrupting the process of awarding customary marine title.

The Tribunal emphasised that the recommendations should be implemented to restore a fair and reasonable balance between Māori interests and those of the public in te takutai moana.

On Friday, 31 October 2025, the Waitangi Tribunal released He Tangata, he Whenua: The Citizenship Report (Wai 3513) in pre-publication format. The inquiry was granted urgency in the Waitangi Tribunal’s inquiry programme, with the hearing being held in September 2025. The Tribunal panel comprised Judge Alana Thomas (presiding), Professor Tafaoimalo Tologata Leilani Tuala-Wareen, Professor Emeritus David Williams, and Ken Williamson.

The Citizenship Act 1977 provides for four types of citizenship – citizenship by birth, descent, grant, and special grant – but it limits citizenship by descent to one generation. This means that children of parents with citizenship by descent who are born overseas are not automatically New Zealand citizens and must apply for citizenship by grant or special grant. The Act makes no mention of the Treaty of Waitangi or the status of Māori as tangata whenua. Claimant John Ruddock (Ngāpuhi) was born in Australia and became a New Zealand citizen by descent through his Māori mother. However, despite their whakapapa, Mr Ruddock’s children are not New Zealand citizens under the Act as they were born in the United States. A range of others have been affected, and some gave evidence, including actress Keisha Castle-Hughes (Ngāti Porou, Tainui, Ngāpuhi).

Overall, with only passive and culturally inappropriate mechanisms and procedures in place to ensure that overseas Māori are not disconnected from their tūrangawaewae, the Tribunal found that the Crown breached the Treaty principles of partnership, active protection, rangatiratanga, good government, equal treatment, and options.

To give effect to Treaty principles, the Tribunal recommended that the Crown enter into consultation with Māori to provide for the co-design of, or full reflection of Māori views in, amendments to the Citizenship Act 1977:

• to include an acknowledgement of the status of Māori as tangata whenua;
• to include a provision requiring the Act to give effect to the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles; and
• to establish a tikanga pathway to citizenship that allows for hapū and iwi to assess whakapapa evidence.

The Tribunal also made three further recommendations for the Crown to action immediately while the above consultation is taking place:

• amend section 8(2)(e) of the Citizenship Act 1977 to include ‘or te reo Māori’;
• provide Mr Ruddock with citizenship by grant if he wants it; and
• extend citizenship by descent to two generations for Māori.

On Friday 14 May 2026, the Waitangi Tribunal released Hūtia te Rito o te Harakeke, kei Hea te Kōmako e Kō? The Interim Stage One Report of the Education and Training Amendment Act and Te Mātaiaho Urgent Inquiry. The claim was brought by Te Kapotai, a hapū based in the Bay of Islands and alleged that the Crown had breached te Tiriti o Waitangi and its principles by:

• removing the statutory requirement under section 127(1)(d) of the Education and Training Act 2020 that required School Boards of Trustees to give effect to te Tiriti o Waitangi; and
• de-prioritisng te Tiriti o Waitangi, te reo Māori, and mātauranga Māori in the national curriculum through the refresh of the New Zealand Curriculum/Te Mātaiaho.

The panel that heard the inquiry comprised presiding officer Judge Rachel Mullins and members Gerrard Albert, Derek Fox, Dr Paul Hamer, and Kevin Prime.

This report concerns the Crown’s decisions, agreed by Cabinet on 23 February 2026, to amend treaty provisions in the Education and Training Act 2020 (‘the Act’) to the ‘take into account’ standard, to remove dispute resolution service operators’ treaty obligations, and to replace references to ‘Te Tiriti o Waitangi’ with a reference to both texts. An additional three purpose provisions are subject to further decisions by the Minister of Justice, the Honourable Paul Goldsmith.

With amending legislation to be introduced this parliamentary term, the Tribunal prepared its report expeditiously so it can inform important decisions Ministers will be making during legislative drafting.

The Tribunal found that the Crown’s approach to the reforms breached the treaty principles of partnership, active protection, and good government and caused prejudice to Māori. The Tribunal recommended that the Crown immediately halt the advancement of the proposed amending legislation, take steps to repair the Māori–Crown relationship, and, if changes are objectively needed to the Act’s treaty provisions, engage meaningfully with Māori in their co-design.

The Tribunal concluded that the Crown had a duty to engage meaningfully with Māori on these reforms. This reflects the constitutional significance of amending treaty provisions; that the change was not neutral – it proposed to downgrade the strength of the Crown’s treaty obligations as expressed in the Act, or even remove them entirely; and the unique context of education where the Crown has particular obligations to actively protect taonga Māori, including te reo Māori and mātauranga Māori. This required the Crown to engage meaningfully with Māori on all changes to the Act.

The Tribunal also concluded that, despite receiving advice from the Ngā Mātāpono Tribunal regarding how to conduct a treaty-compliant treaty clause review, the Crown pursued a treaty-inconsistent course of engaging with a singular national Māori body, the National Iwi Chairs Forum, and only after substantive decisions had been made. The Tribunal noted that the Minister of Justice’s view that the select committee would provide a sufficient opportunity to provide input was inadequate and was an insult to Māori. The Tribunal noted that the Crown acted contrary to officials’ advice and showed a reckless disregard for the (likely and advised) harm to the Māori–Crown relationship.

The Tribunal considered next whether the Crown, in the absence of meaningful engagement with Māori, had adequately informed itself through internal policy processes of the potential implications of the proposed changes, including their impact on Māori interests. The Tribunal concluded that Cabinet agreed to the proposals despite clear and repeated advice from officials that constrained timeframes had precluded in-depth analysis, that not enough was known about the potential impact of the proposals, and that the regulatory impact statement was insufficiently developed to form the basis for Ministers to make an informed decision.

The Tribunal stated that what was clear was that the proposals carried a risk of harm to the Māori–Crown relationship and that, as treaty provisions can act as safeguards for Māori interests, reducing or repealing obligations therein could disproportionately impact Māori. The Tribunal agreed with officials that downgrading treaty standards in the Act to one of the lowest standards of ‘take into account’ would signal a shift in the Crown’s commitment to the treaty as it applies to education.

The Tribunal observed that reducing the strength and nature of the Crown’s treaty obligations as expressed in statute unilaterally and without genuine engagement with Māori is inherently inconsistent with the partnership forged in 1840. It was comparable to the Treaty Principles Bill, or even worse as the reform may be enacted, and represented an attempt by the Crown to takahi the mana of the treaty and its place in the laws of Aotearoa.

In closing, the Tribunal strongly urged the Crown to step back from the proposed reforms, to engage meaningfully with Māori, and to take immediate steps to repair the Māori–Crown relationship. This was important to not only honour the Crown’s obligations under the treaty but to restore a relationship the Crown itself knows is in a fragile state.
After releasing its stage one report, the Tribunal will turn its attention to reporting on the removal of school boards’ treaty obligations and the curriculum reforms in its stage two report.