Search Inquiry Documents

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.
 

The Final Report on the MV Rena and Motiti Island Claims, originally released in pre-publication format in November 2014, is the outcome of two claims: Wai 2293 from the Ngāi Te Hapū Incorporated Society and Wai 2291 from the Motiti Rohe Moana Trust and the Mataatua District Māori Council. Both claims related to alleged Crown conduct in relation to the removal of the MV Rena from Otaiti (Astrolabe Reef) near Motiti Island.

The Tribunal held an urgent hearing in Tauranga from 30 June to 2 July 2014. The panel appointed to hear the claims comprised Judge Sarah Reeves (presiding), Ron Crosby, the Honourable Sir Douglas Kidd, and Professor Sir Tamati Reedy.

In October 2012, the Crown signed three deeds with the Rena owners to settle its claims for $27.6 million. The Tribunal’s final report focuses on the Crown’s conduct in entering one of those deeds, the wreck removal deed, which obliged the Crown to consider, in good faith, supporting an application by the owners for resource consent to leave the wreck on the reef. Such an application was lodged on behalf of the Rena owners in May 2014.

In the report, the Tribunal found that the obligations the Crown incurred under the wreck removal deed placed the Rena owners in a special position in the resource consent process in a way that had the potential to significantly affect Māori interests in Otaiti. Further, the Tribunal found that the Crown had signed the deed without having sufficient knowledge of Māori interests in the reef and without having consulted Māori, despite it being both practical and necessary for it to have done so.

The Tribunal considered that the Crown, by opting in August 2014 to partially oppose the Rena owners’ resource consent application, avoided the primary prejudice that could have arisen from its conduct in entering the wreck removal deed. However, the Tribunal also found that the Crown’s conduct diminished the Treaty partnership to the detriment of Māori and so prejudicially affected the claimants.

The Tribunal therefore found that the Crown’s conduct in entering the wreck removal deed without having consulted Māori breached the Treaty principles of partnership and mutual benefit. The Crown failed in its duty to act reasonably, honourably, and in good faith. The Tribunal made recommendations designed to remedy the prejudice that this caused the claimants.

The Tribunal’s final report followed an interim report released in July 2014 in anticipation of an all-of-government response to the owners’ resource consent application. In that report, the Tribunal found that the Crown’s consultation process with Māori as it prepared to decide its position on the owners’ resource consent application had breached the principles of good faith and partnership. The Tribunal’s interim report is included as an appendix to its final report.

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.

The urgent inquiry was triggered by the publication in 2011 of the report of the Early Childhood Education Taskforce, which, the claimants said, had not been consulted with them and had seriously damaged their reputation. The report, and Government policy development based on it, would cause irreparable harm to the kōhanga reo movement. The Tribunal endorsed the conclusion of the Wai 262 Tribunal’s report, Ko Aotearoa Tēnei, that urgent steps were needed to address recent Crown policy failures if te reo is to survive. The Tribunal noted that survival requires both Treaty partners – Māori and the Crown – to collaborate in taking whatever reasonable steps are required to achieve the shared aim of assuring the long-term health of te reo as a taonga of Māori.

Released in September 2012, the Port Nicholson Block Urgency Report is the outcome of an urgent inquiry into Crown actions during and after negotiations to settle the historical claims of Taranaki Whānui ki te Upoko o te Ika (Taranaki Whānui) in the Port Nicholson block.

Claim 2235 was lodged in December 2009 by the trustees of the Port Nicholson Block Settlement Trust (PNBST), the post-settlement governance entity of Taranaki Whānui. In the course of negotiations, Taranaki Whānui agreed to release the Wellington Central Police Station from their proposed settlement package. This enabled the Crown to offer the police station to Ngāti Toa Rangatira (Ngāti Toa) as commercial redress. The claimants alleged that, in return for the release of the police station, the Crown ‘committed itself to recognise and uphold the mana whenua of Taranaki Whanui over the Port Nicholson Block by not offering any other property within the Block to Ngati Toa or any other iwi as commercial or cultural redress’.

The claimants further alleged that, in offering Ngāti Toa a number of items of commercial and cultural redress in the Port Nicholson block, the Crown had broken the undertakings that it gave to Taranaki Whānui to secure the release of the police station. They argued that this constituted a breach of Treaty principles that would become irreversible once the deed of settlement between the Crown and Ngāti Toa was finalised and redress enacted.

The Tribunal constituted to hear the claim comprised Judge Stephen Clark (presiding), the Honourable Sir Douglas Lorimer Kidd, Basil Morrison, and Sir Tamati Reedy. A hearing was held in June 2012 at the Tribunal’s offices in Wellington.

The Tribunal did not uphold the claim of Taranaki Whānui. However, it did find that the Crown, in exchange for the release of the Wellington Central Police Station, gave Taranaki Whānui undertakings not to offer Ngāti Toa any cultural redress and no further commercial redress within the Wellington CBD.

The Tribunal found that the Crown broke those undertakings. The Crown had offered Ngāti Toa a plaque at Parliament as cultural redress and a right of first refusal (RFR) over Crown properties and New Zealand Transport Agency administered properties in Wellington City, potentially including the Wellington CBD, as commercial redress. In so acting, the Crown breached the principles of the Treaty by failing to actively protect the interests of, and to act reasonably and with the utmost good faith towards, Taranaki Whānui.

In relation to the offer of cultural redress, the Tribunal stopped short of making a recommendation since Taranaki Whānui knew before signing their deed of settlement that there was an offer of cultural redress in the Wellington CBD to Ngāti Toa. The offer of a plaque at Parliament had also been withdrawn.

In relation to the offer of commercial redress, the Tribunal made a series of recommendations to the Crown to rectify the situation it had created, namely:

• That it review the offer of RFRs to Ngāti Toa over core Crown properties and New Zealand Transport Agency administered properties in Wellington City.
• That, if necessary, it amend the offer of RFRs to Ngāti Toa, to ensure that no commercial properties were made available via the RFR mechanism to Ngāti Toa within the Wellington CBD. The Tribunal was not concerned about properties located outside the CBD.
• If, as a result of implementing the above two recommendations, the commercial redress package on offer to Ngāti Toa was in any way diminished, the Crown should identify and offer alternative substitute commercial redress for Ngāti Toa.

The Tribunal also pointed to flaws in the Crown’s negotiation processes of the time, including the use of the ‘silo’ approach (whereby communication between different teams of Crown negotiators was minimal) and a lack of clarity in the language that Crown officials used. In the Tribunal’s view, both led to confusion and potentially created new grievances in the Port Nicholson block.

The Waitangi Tribunal’s Horowhenua: The Muaūpoko Priority Report was released on 30 June 2017. It concerns 30 claims relating to Muaūpoko, an iwi of the lower North Island.

In her letter of transmittal Deputy Chief Judge Caren Fox described Muaūpoko as ‘an ancient, proud, and dignified people who once ranged over an area that reached into the northern end of Manawatū, across the Tararua Ranges, and down into the top of the South Island’. One of their tupuna, Taueki, signed the Treaty of Waitangi in May 1840.

Muaūpoko’s claims are part of the Porirua ki Manawatū district inquiry. The Tribunal heard these claims as a priority in 2015–16, at the request of claimants, in order to provide a report before settlement negotiations were well advanced.

The inquiry panel comprised Deputy Chief Judge Caren Fox (presiding), Emeritus Professor Sir Tamati Reedy, Dr Grant Phillipson, the Honourable Sir Douglas Kidd, and Tania Simpson. The Tribunal convened a two-day Nga Kōrero Tuku Iho hui in February 2014 to hear oral and traditional evidence from the people. Three hearing weeks were held between October and December 2015. The parties made closing submissions in writing between February and May 2016.

Muaūpoko’s claims focused on their lands at Horowhenua and their treasured taonga Lake Horowhenua and the Hōkio Stream. The environmental degradation of the lake and associated waterways was an especially strong grievance for Muaūpoko. Claimant Philip Taueki told the Tribunal that the polluted state of these precious taonga ‘epitomises the Crown’s appalling and disgusting treatment of Mua-Upoko ever since the day Tauheke signed the Treaty of Waitangi’.

Deputy Chief Judge Fox noted that the Crown assisted the Tribunal’s inquiry by making a number of significant concessions of Treaty breach. These included admissions that some legislation and Crown acts have prejudiced Muaūpoko and that Muaūpoko were made virtually landless, in breach of the Treaty.

The Tribunal accepted the Crown concessions and identified several other important Treaty breaches in relation to Muaūpoko’s Horowhenua lands. The Tribunal found that the Native Land Court and the individualisation of tribal land was imposed on Muaūpoko in the 1870s, and that the Crown purchased the Levin township site in the 1880s in a way which was significantly unfair to Muaūpoko. The Tribunal also found that Muaūpoko were subjected to a number of significant Treaty breaches in the 1890s. By the end of the twentieth century, they had been rendered landless.

The Tribunal found serious Treaty breaches in relation to Crown actions and omissions in respect of Lake Horowhenua and the Hōkio Stream. In the early 1900s, the Crown made Lake Horowhenua, the bed of which belonged to Muaūpoko, a public recreation reserve, giving control of it to a domain board. The Tribunal found that this was done without the full agreement of the Muaūpoko owners, and that a series of significant Treaty breaches followed in the way the lake has been controlled and administered, including an inadequate attempt by the Crown to remedy these matters in 1956. The Tribunal also found that the Crown took an unusually active role in respect of Lake Horowhenua and the Hōkio Stream, and that the Crown was complicit in the pollution and environmental degradation of these taonga.

The Tribunal recommended that the Crown negotiate with Muaūpoko a Treaty settlement that will address the harm suffered, and that the settlement include a contemporary Muaūpoko governance structure with responsibility for the administration of the settlement.

The Tribunal further recommended that the Crown legislate as soon as possible for a contemporary Muaūpoko governance structure to act as kaitiaki for Lake Horowhenua and the Hōkio Stream, and associated waters and fisheries. This will require the Crown to undertake detailed negotiations with the Lake Horowhenua Trustees, the lake bed owners, and all of Muaūpoko.

The Tribunal recommended that the Crown provide to the new Lake Horowhenua Muaūpoko governance structure annual appropriations to assist it to meet its kaitiaki obligations in accordance with its legislative obligations.

The Tribunal noted that it had not yet heard the claims of or made recommendations in respect of Ngāti Raukawa and Te Āti Awa/Ngāti Awa ki Kapiti. Those iwi will be heard as part of forthcoming Porirua ki Manawatū hearings.

The Kārewarewa Urupā Report is a report by the Waitangi Tribunal into claims lodged about the eponymous urupā by Te Ātiawa/Ngāti Awa ki Kapiti as part of the Tribunal’s Porirua ki Manawatū inquiry. The panel that heard the claim comprised Deputy Chief Judge Caren Fox (presiding), the Honourable Sir Douglas Kidd KNZM, Dr Grant Phillipson, Tania Te Rangingangana Simpson, and Dr Monty Soutar. The claim was heard as part of the Te Ātiawa/Ngāti Awa hearings.

The Kārewarewa urupā is the resting place for many of those killed in the historically important battle of Kuititanga in 1839, as well as prominent ancestors of Te Ātiawa/Ngāti Awa. The land on which the urupā was located eventually became the Ngārara West A14B1 block but was never formally set apart as a Māori reservation.

In 1968, a meeting of owners of the block was called under the Māori Affairs Act 1953 to vote on a resolution to sell the land to a development company. Although just 13 of the 77 owners were present in person or by proxy, the statutory regime of the time allowed small minorities of owners to sell the land of the majority without their knowledge or consent. The owners were also incorrectly advised that the block was not the urupā block, and as a result they voted to sell it to the Waikanae Land Company.

The company in turn applied to the Horowhenua County Council for a district plan change in order to remove the ‘Māori Cemetery’ designation and develop the land for housing. Over the objections of tribal leaders, the council revoked the designation.

During the 1970s, about 350,000 cubic metres of dredged material from the adjacent wetland was dumped on top of the block, and streets and houses were built on more than half of the land. Work stalled in the late 1970s when the Waikanae Land Company went into receivership, but attempts were made to resume housing development in the 1990s. However, the discovery of kōiwi (human remains) halted that. The claimants remained deeply concerned at the prospect of further disturbance to the burial ground.

The Tribunal found that the statutory regime in 1968 deprived owner groups of their tino rangatiratanga over their land and breached the Treaty principles of partnership and active protection, that the Town and Country Planning Act 1953 was inconsistent with Treaty
principles, and that the Burial and Cremation Act 1964 gave little or no protection to Māori burial grounds. It also found that there were systemic Treaty breaches in the processes for exploratory authorities and the requirements of section 56 of the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014.

The Tribunal recommended that the Māori Heritage Council lead a review of the statutory timeframes for section 56 applications and that section 56 be amended to require an assessment of Māori values in the case of wāhi tapu and an assessment of the impact of the invasive exploratory investigation on those values.