Search Inquiry Documents

Due to its size, this document is not available on our website. If you require a copy, please send your name and postal address (no P.O. boxes) to WT_Requests@justice.govt.nz and a USB will be sent to you.

Due to its size, this document is not available on our website. If you require a copy, please send your name and postal address (no P.O. boxes) to WT_Requests@justice.govt.nz and a USB will be sent to you.

Due to its size, this document is not available on our website. If you require a copy, please send your name and postal address (no P.O. boxes) to WT_Requests@justice.govt.nz and a USB will be sent to you.

Due to its size, this document is not available on our website. If you require a copy, please send your name and postal address (no P.O. boxes) to WT_Requests@justice.govt.nz and a USB will be sent to you.

On Friday 19 December 2025, the Waitangi Tribunal released a pre-publication version of part II of Tino Rangatiratanga me te Kāwanatanga: The Report on Stage 2 of the Te Paparahi o Te Raki Inquiry. This volume is the third report released in the Te Paparahi o Te Raki (Northland) District Inquiry (Wai 1040). For the purposes of this inquiry, the Te Raki district includes all the territories north of Auckland that have not been the subject of previous Tribunal reports and stretches to the Maungatahiwha Range in the north and to the Aotea and Rangitoto Islands in the east and borders the Te Roroa and Kaipara districts in the west. The panel comprised presiding officer Judge Craig Coxhead and members Dr Robyn Anderson and Dr Ann Parsonson.

In its stage 1 report, the Tribunal made the landmark finding that Te Raki rangatira did not cede their sovereignty to the Crown in 1840. Stage 2 of the inquiry shifted focus to specific claims brought by Te Raki Māori, particularly concerning land issues and the nature of Māori–Crown engagement throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. In its previously released volumes 1 to 3, the Tribunal found that, through its interactions with Te Raki Māori, the Crown breached the principles of te Tiriti o Waitangi / the Treaty of Waitangi, causing severe and lasting prejudice.

Volume 4 addresses the attempts of Te Raki hapū and iwi to assert tino rangatiratanga in the face of the Crown’s increasingly overpowering political authority at both national and local levels, and it considers the prejudicial effects of the latter on the district’s tangata whenua. The report notes that, with the signing of the treaty, Te Raki rangatira agreed to share power with the Crown as equals through the complementary spheres of tino rangatiratanga and kāwanatanga. Instead, the Crown asserted itself as the dominant partner, establishing a system of government that prioritised Pākehā interests over those of Māori. By the turn of the twentieth century, this assertion of practical authority was largely complete. The Tribunal finds that, while the Crown tolerated some degree of Māori self-government, including the establishment of Maori councils in 1900, such organisations were restricted to operate within a strict framework set by the Crown and their actual powers were considerably limited. In short, Te Raki Māori were forced to accept what little autonomy the Crown would allow, rather than the tino rangatiratanga guaranteed to them under the treaty.

The report also notes that, while Māori-led institutions may have had limited influence within their own communities, there were very few elected Māori representatives in the Pākehā-dominated local and regional councils for much of the late nineteenth century and the twentieth century. Despite the attempts of Te Raki Māori to engage on issues of importance to them – issues which the Crown itself was eager to see resolved, such as the construction of roads in the district – the local authorities generally considered Māori knowledge to be irrelevant. Furthermore, for many decades very few Te Raki Māori were eligible to participate in local body elections, as voting was contingent upon the payment of rates.

The report identifies the handling of rates as a key source of tension between Te Raki Māori and local authorities. Initially, local councils faced difficulties in rating land in multiple ownership and thus did not attempt to extend rating to multiply owned Māori land. However, as pressure to address Māori rates arrears grew, councils began to enforce rates debts upon Te Raki Māori through the rapid increase of rates demands and the alienation of Māori land. Even after this change, Māori were slow to engage with local authorities, with whom they had had very limited interactions for decades. By contrast, local authorities increasingly dictated and restricted how Māori land could be used.

In respect of these actions and omissions, the Tribunal finds that, instead of recognising Māori tino rangatiratanga and sharing authority as guaranteed under the treaty, the Crown consistently denied Te Raki Māori a voice over their own affairs and a proportionate voice in the governance of the country. Indeed, the Tribunal questioned whether such a voice was ever achievable within the political framework established by the Crown. As such, the Tribunal found that the Crown had breached the following treaty principles:

• te mātāpono o te tino rangatiratanga;
• te mātāpono o te kāwanatanga / the principle of good government;
• te mātāpono o te houruatanga / the principle of partnership;
• te mātāpono o te whakaaronui tētahi ki tētahi / the principle of mutual recognition and respect;
• te mātāpono o te matapopore moroki / the principle of active protection;
• te mātāpono o te whai hua kotahi me te matatika mana whakahaere / the principle of mutual benefit and the right to development;
• te mātāpono o te mana taurite / the principle of equity; and
• te mātāpono o te whakatika / the principle of redress.

The Tribunal finds that the Crown’s assumption and exercise of power in the Te Paparahi o Te Raki district without regard to tino rangatiratanga shattered the trust of Māori in the Crown. It is noted in volume 4 that these historical actions contributed significantly to the fragile relationship between Te Raki Māori and the Crown and resulted in wide-ranging negative social and economic effects still evident to this day.

Within this volume, the Tribunal makes a number of recommendations to support the Crown and Te Raki Māori in future treaty settlement negotiations. It repeats recommendations made in the part I report; namely, that the Crown should:

• return all Crown-owned land in the district to Te Raki Māori;
• provide economic compensation; and
• enter discussions with Te Raki Māori to determine appropriate constitutional processes and institutions at the national, iwi, and hapū levels.

With reference to the claims addressed in the present volume, the Tribunal also recommends that local government bodies support Te Raki hapū and iwi to exercise their tino rangatiratanga alongside existing local authorities and that the Crown introduce new legislative requirements for local and regional authorities to develop partnership agreements with hapū and iwi in a way that appropriately recognises Māori tino rangatiratanga.

On Monday 10 October 2005, the Waitangi Tribunal released its report on certain policies and procedures used by the Department of Corrections in relation to the assessment of offenders. The Offender Assessment Policies Report considered two specific assessment tools (tests) that were designed and used by the department. The tools helped to identify and assess offenders who were at high risk of reoffending, and were intended to assist the development of programmes that could work towards reducing Māori reoffending.

Claimant Tom Hemopo, on behalf of Ngati Kahungunu, claimed that the assessment tools disadvantaged Maori offenders in terms of the type and length of sentences they received. He also alleged deficiencies in the department's consultation with Māori, and in the design, implementation, and use of the tools.

The Tribunal concluded that there was insufficient evidence to establish that any prejudice had been or was being caused to Māori offenders. The Tribunal recognised that the department had acted in good faith in order to reduce reoffending and believed that some aspects of the assessment tools were ground-breaking.

Nevertheless, it believed that the 'MaCRNs' tool, which focused on Māori offenders' cultural responsiveness, required more testing and independent evaluation. The Tribunal also identified Treaty breaches in the way that the department had developed that tool without consulting Māori communities, and in its monitoring of the tool's use and effects. It considered that Māori communities, including Ngati Kahungunu, had significant interests in the goal of reducing Māori offending and in using Māori culture to help achieve that goal, and the Tribunal thought that the department's responses to Māori reoffending should be developed and monitored in a manner that was consistent with those interests.

In its summing up, the Tribunal said that it believed the parties might not be far apart in finding a way forward that built on the important work that had already been done.