Search Inquiry Documents

On Friday 25 September 2026, the Tribunal released Hautupua: Te Aka Whai Ora (Maaori Health Authority) Priority Report, Part 2 in pre-publication format. The stage 1 report on the disestablishment of Te Aka Whai Ora/the Maaori Health Authority was released in November 2024. This stage of the priority inquiry addressed claims concerning the Crown’s alternative plans to Maaori health in lieu of a Maaori health authority. The Tribunal panel for this inquiry consisted of Judge Stone (presiding), Professor Susy Frankel (who resigned as a Tribunal Member on 15 September 2025 and completed these proceedings per clause 1 of schedule 2 to the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975), Professor Tom Roa, Professor Linda Tuhiwai Smith, and Tania Simpson.

The Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) Amendment Bill was introduced to the House on 2 July 2025, two days before the stage 2 hearing process concluded. This prevented the Tribunal from reporting, as its jurisdiction was removed. The Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) Amendment Act was enacted 12 months later, on 10 July 2026, and the Tribunal then issued its report.

The stage 2 report addressed two issues:

• whether the Crown’s process in developing plans to address Maaori health in lieu of a Maaori health authority is consistent with te Tiriti o Waitangi and its principles; and
• whether the Crown’s alternative plans to address Maaori health in lieu of a Maaori health authority are consistent with te Tiriti o Waitangi and its principles.

After assessing the evidence presented from parties, the Tribunal found breaches of te Tiriti/the Treaty principles of tino rangatiratanga, kaawanatanga and good government, partnership – including the duty of consultation – active protection, equity, and options.

The Tribunal’s findings on process included that the Crown did not discharge its duty to adequately inform Maaori when developing an alternative plan. The Crown also failed to undertake meaningful consultation with Maaori that honoured te Tiriti/the Treaty. The Crown failed to recognise and respect the right of Maaori to self-determine what is best for them in respect of Maaori health and failed to properly engage with, and inform, Maaori of potential changes to two key elements that formed part of its alternative plan: the Hauora Maaori Strategy and the Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Maaori Health Authority) Amendment Act 2024. This fell well short of a Tiriti/Treaty consistent process.

The Tribunal found that the Crown’s alternative plans breached Tiriti/Treaty principles in a number of ways. The Crown failed to take any meaningful action towards Maaori health equity and failed to produce any clear alternative plan for Maaori health in a timely manner. The Crown failed in its duty to follow its own laws, rules, and standards by reviewing Te Aka Whai Ora only 10 months after its establishment, whilst announcing that it must wait longer than a year to review other system-wide changes within the health sector. This signalled a double standard. The Tribunal found that the Crown failed in its duty to consult with Maaori, consequently dismissing Tiriti/Treaty-based governance duties and making changes to Maaori health with minimal cultural responsiveness and a lack of Maaori input across all levels.

Overall, the Tribunal found that Maaori have suffered and will continue to suffer a range of short- and long-term prejudicial effects as a result of these breaches.

To give effect to Treaty principles, the Tribunal recommends that the Crown:

• commit to revisiting the option of a stand-alone Maaori health authority;

• consult extensively with Maaori and make informed decisions on matters concerning Maaori health; and

• base all decision-making concerning Maaori health and, in particular, measures to address long-standing Maaori inequities, on robust evidence and scientific knowledge.

On 16 September 2026, the Waitangi Tribunal released a pre-publication copy of Hūtia te Rito o te Harakeke, kei Hea te Kōmako e Kō? The Stage Two, Part I Report of the Education and Training Amendment Act and Te Mātaiaho Urgent Inquiry.

The Tribunal’s stage two, part I report concerns the Crown’s reform of Aotearoa New Zealand’s national curriculum, comprising both Te Marautanga o Aotearoa and the New Zealand Curriculum. This report follows the Tribunal’s stage one interim report concerning proposed changes to treaty provisions in the Education and Training Act 2020, released in May 2026, and precedes the forthcoming stage two, part II report addressing the removal of school boards’ Treaty obligations, formerly contained in section 127(1)(d) of the Education and Training Act 2020.

The Tribunal panel was comprised of Judge Rachel Mullins, Gerrard Albert, Derek Fox, Dr Paul Hamer, and Kevin Prime. The claimants, Te Kapotai and Ngāti Hine, first applied for urgency on 19 November 2025. On 3 December 2025, a further application for urgency was received from the kaimahi Māori of Te Riu Roa/New Zealand Educational Institute. The Crown opposed urgency.

On 2 March 2026, the Tribunal granted the claims urgency and, on 15 and 17 April 2026, the claims were heard. On the last day of hearing, following a judicial conference, the parties submitted a revised statement of issues which expanded the inquiry’s scope to include the proposed Education and Training Act 2020 reforms addressed in the stage one interim report. The revised statement of issues also replaced the heading ‘New Zealand Curriculum – Te Mātaiaho’ with the ‘National Curriculum’, thereby expanding the inquiry’s scope to incorporate Te Marautanga o Aotearoa, the curriculum designed for use in Māori-medium and kaupapa Māori settings. On 28 April 2026, the Tribunal heard oral closing submissions.

On 21 April 2026, Judge Mullins confirmed the Tribunal would report in two stages, with stage one addressing broader proposed changes to the Education and Training Act 2020 under the treaty clause review and stage two addressing the removal of section 127(1)(d) and the national curriculum. After receiving written closing submissions, the Tribunal issued its stage one interim report on 24 May 2026.

In this, its stage two, part I report, the Tribunal found that the Crown, through its actions related to developing a ‘knowledge-rich curriculum’ informed by the ‘science of learning’, breached a number of Treaty principles. Specifically, it found that the Crown:

• breached the principle of partnership through its lack of meaningful engagement and consensus-building with Māori about the new draft national curriculum and its failure to fulfil its obligations under the Kawa Whakapūmau with Ngā Kura ā Iwi;
• breached the principle of active protection by moving ahead with a knowledge-rich approach in the absence of evidence that it will reduce Māori inequities, in the face of opposition from Māori and the wider sector, with an apparent lack of engagement with the findings of the Huia Kaimanawa report, and in the context of its heightened duty to act in a protective manner in the compulsory schooling sector, where known inequities exist;
• breached its duty of active protection of te reo, tikanga, and mātauranga Māori by reducing emphasis on them (in a context in which section 127(1)(d) of the Education and Training Act 2020 had also been removed) and simultaneously inhibiting teachers’ capacity to meaningfully incorporate content from te ao Māori given the volume of prescribed content and mandatory teaching times for reading, writing, and mathematics;
• breached its duty of active protection of tikanga and mātauranga Māori by sidelining the Te Tīrewa Marautanga framework in favour of the same knowledge-rich design principles (except one) as underpinned the New Zealand Curriculum;
• breached the principle of partnership by failing to sufficiently consider the aspirations and priorities that whānau, hapū, and iwi have for their uri in Māori-medium and kaupapa Māori settings in its redesign of Te Marautanga o Aotearoa;
• breached the principle of equity through its lack of active protection and relative disregard for Māori voices; and
• breached the principle of good government in officials’ apparent failure to make any robust assessment of the applicability of the philosophy behind knowledge rich to New Zealand circumstances (and to Māori in particular), in officials’ corresponding reinforcement of the Minister’s predetermined position, and by the Crown’s apparent lack of consideration of existing successful Māori education models.

The Tribunal recommended that the Crown recommit to working in partnership with Māori in education and return to working with Māori on designing a truly indigenous Māori-medium and kaupapa Māori curriculum through Te Marautanga o Aotearoa. The Tribunal further provided the Crown with a list of features that it recommended should characterise the Crown’s renewed commitment to partnership. The Tribunal concluded that partnership was essential if the Crown were to correct its course and achieve equitable outcomes for ākonga Māori.

On Thursday 3 September 2026, the Waitangi Tribunal released Hauwhaikaha: The Disability System Report in pre-publication format for stage two phase one (disability phase) of the Health Services and Outcomes Kaupapa Inquiry (Wai 2575). This report is the outcome of the Waitangi Tribunal inquiry into the Aotearoa New Zealand disability system, taking into account countless hours of lived experience, research, personal stories, evidence gathering and detailed analysis. In total, 48 claimants and 13 interested parties participated in the inquiry with 11 hearing weeks held between 2022 and 2024.

Ensuring the participation of taangata whaikaha Maaori claimants, the proceedings in the inquiry were governed by a set of guidelines, developed collaboratively with the relevant parties. These included, for example, having New Zealand Sign Language interpreters available during all the hearings and using double vowels instead of macrons in written material.

In accordance with the accessibility protocol, plain-language summaries of the report were produced in five alternate formats: audio, Braille, Easy Read, large print, and New Zealand Sign Language. This makes the report more accessible to those most affected by it.

Maaori have a significantly higher prevalence of disability than non-Maaori. Additionally, throughout this inquiry, the Tribunal heard evidence regarding inequitable health outcomes for taangata whaikaha Maaori. The claimants alleged that the overrepresentation of Maaori within the disability population stems from inequitable health outcomes that Maaori experience generally, including inequitable access to health services and poorer health outcomes. The report explores whether the persistent inequitable health outcomes suffered by taangata whaikaha Maaori are indicators of Tiriti/Treaty breach. In doing so, the Tribunal canvassed various structural aspects of the disability system, from the collection of disability data to decision-making design, and then assessed those structural aspects for Tiriti/Treaty compliance.

The Crown agreed that there was a higher proportion of unmet need among taangata whaikaha Maaori and that taangata whaikaha Maaori are frequently marginalised within the health and disability system. Notwithstanding the apparent over-representation of Maaori within the disability population, the evidence suggests that there is inequitable access in the uptake of disability support services by taangata whaikaha Maaori due to systemic access barriers. The claimants alleged that the Crown has failed to address the barriers in the disability system and reduce adverse health disparities. Some claimants shared their lived experience of a daily struggle to attain health and wellbeing outcomes in the current disability system. Taangata whaikaha Maaori consistently said that the disability system is fragmented, complex and difficult to navigate.

Essentially, the claimants are asking to be heard and seen within the disability system with the call: ‘nothing about us, without us’. Taangata whaikaha Maaori expressed the need for the Crown to genuinely partner with them in the design, delivery and monitoring of the disability system. The claimants contended that they have consistently called for increased representation of taangata whaikaha Maaori in the disability system and have requested formal partnership mechanisms with the Crown. They advocated strongly for adequate representation of taangata whaikaha Maaori across all levels of the disability system.

The Tribunal found that the Crown has prejudiced taangata whaikaha Maaori in several ways.

The Crown has historically failed to partner with taangata whaikaha Maaori in the design of the disability system, including the services that are available to them, and the formulation of disability-related policy, strategies and action plans. The Tribunal found that the Crown has not managed the disability system in a way that adequately supports and resources taangata whaikaha Maaori to formally participate in the design of the system, as well as at the decision-making level.

The Tribunal also found that, despite the Crown being aware of longstanding inequity, it has failed to sufficiently inform itself of how the disability system is performing in order to adequately address disparities. Moreover, the Tribunal observed that the Crown has not implemented nationally consistent data standards for Crown agencies, which means that taangata whaikaha Maaori health outcomes are not systematically and separately measured and reported on. Maaori and taangata whaikaha Maaori are at present unable to independently and formally scrutinise the performance of the Crown’s policy settings for the disability system or its compliance with te Tiriti/the Treaty.

Kaupapa Maaori providers are intrinsic to delivering culturally appropriate services to taangata whaikaha Maaori and sustaining hauroa Maaori. They are themselves expressions of tino rangatiratanga. The Tribunal found that kaupapa Maaori providers do not receive sufficient funding or support to deliver culturally appropriate services that meet the needs of taangata whaikaha Maaori. The Tribunal further found that taangata whaikaha Maaori and their whaanau face many funding-related barriers, affecting their ability to receive timely, quality and sustainable services of their choosing.

The Tribunal was repeatedly told that taangata whaikaha Maaori and their whaanau are disadvantaged by the gap in available disability services, as well as by experiences of racism and discrimination. Such access barriers are exacerbated for Maaori who live in rural areas, where scarcity of services often leads to further barriers, such as long travel distances and higher associated costs. Moreover, Maaori and taangata whaikaha Maaori are under-represented in the health and disability workforce, which affects the care received by taangata whaikaha Maaori and the cultural competency of services. The Tribunal found that the Crown’s delivery of training and professional development does not ensure disability staff are culturally competent and has resulted in too many cases of taangata whaikaha Maaori receiving culturally unsafe care.

The Tribunal found several breaches concerning claims relating to three specific roopuu: Kaapoo Maaori (Maaori who are blind, deafblind or vision-impaired or who have low vision), Taangata Turi (Maaori who are deaf or hard of hearing) and taangata whaikaha (Maaori with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder).

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

• the Crown establish viable partnership models in a process co-designed with taangata whaikaha Maaori;
• the Crown honour the Tiriti/Treaty principles of partnership and tino rangatiratanga by including taangata whaikaha Maaori in the design and delivery of the disability system; and
• the Crown ensure appropriate replacements for the monitoring role that Te Aka Whai Ora had under the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Act 2022 for the health and disability system (including the health services provided through prisons) to improve Maaori health outcomes, including for taangata whaikaha Maaori.

The Tribunal also made several recommendations regarding data, funding and accountability, as well as further specific recommendations in relation to Kaapoo Maaori, Taangata Turi and taangata whaikaha Maaori.

On 31 July 2026, the Waitangi Tribunal released a pre-publication copy of Te Tinihanga o ngā Mātāpono: The Urgent Report on the Treaty Principles Reform, a report on the Crown’s proposals to reduce or remove Treaty of Waitangi / te Tiriti o Waitangi provisions from 18 pieces of legislation.

On 23 February 2026, Cabinet had agreed to several amendments to Treaty/Tiriti provisions, including to repeal multiple provisions and to lower the Treaty/Tiriti weighting in provisions included in the relevant statutes to no higher than ‘take into account’. On 21  April, the Tribunal received a claim from the claimants for Wai 682, the Ngāti Hine Lands, Forests, and Resources Claim, contending that, in deciding to make these legislative changes, the Crown had breached the principles of the Treaty/te Tiriti as, if enacted, the reforms would lead to the marginalisation of Māori interests in the operation of law and policy. The claim was registered as Wai 3565, and 56 parties were granted interested party status. The claimants also filed an application for urgency, and the Tribunal received 31 submissions supporting it, though the Crown opposed it. After consideration, Chief Judge Dr Caren Fox granted urgency on 6 May. The panel appointed to hear the claim comprised Chief Judge Dr Fox (presiding), Derek Fox, and Dr Paul Hamer, and the hearing was held at the James Cook Hotel in Wellington on 2 and 3 June 2026.

The report focused on the rationale behind the reforms, the adequacy of the policy process followed by the Crown in progressing them, and the impacts the reforms would have on Māori if enacted. In producing this analysis, the report canvassed the wider context surrounding Treaty/Tiriti provisions in legislation, including their utility and the role that they play within the Māori–Crown relationship. 

• approving legislative proposals to substantively repeal several provisions (subject to ministerial approval) and to amend Treaty/Tiriti weightings in the affected provisions to no higher than ‘take into account’ on the basis of a flawed rationale and in an absence of supporting evidence;
• approving legislative proposals to amend or repeal the provisions in question without adequately informing itself of the effects of the changes on Māori or Māori interests;
• prioritising coalition agreement commitments over the need to make informed policy decisions; and
• making substantive policy decisions to approve the legislative proposals in the absence of meaningful engagement with Māori on the proposals in question. The Tribunal also considered this omission to be inconsistent with upholding the honour of the Crown.

The Tribunal further found that, if the proposed reforms were enacted without meaningful co-design engagement with Māori, the Crown would breach the principles of good government and active protection. Additionally, in doing so, the Crown would fail to adequately recognise Māori tino rangatiratanga and, as such, be in breach of the principle of partnership. Finally, if the proposed reforms were enacted, the Crown would breach the principles of active protection, equity, and redress. 

The Tribunal considered that Māori would be significantly prejudiced by the Crown’s proposed reforms which, if enacted, could result in poorer environmental and health outcomes for Māori and would negatively impact Māori kaitiakitanga and rangatiratanga. The reform process has seriously damaged the Māori–Crown relationship and caused distress and uncertainty among Māori as to the future legislative protection of their interests. Further, the Tribunal considered that the Crown had sent a strong signal across the public sector that the Treaty/te Tiriti may be downgraded in decision making. In order to mitigate the prejudice already caused and to prevent future prejudice to Māori as a result of the proposals, the Tribunal recommended that: 

• the Crown immediately pause its reforms and not progress them until meaningful co-design with Māori had occurred;
• no Treaty/Tiriti provisions should be repealed or downgraded;
• upon the identification of a coherent rationale on the part of the Crown for change, the Crown should conduct thorough engagement with all Māori stakeholders associated with each affected statute;
• if the Crown did not halt its process and it introduced a Bill which was then referred to select committee, there should be a more meaningful and in-depth process than a standard select committee inquiry; and
• the Crown should meaningfully consult with post-settlement governance entities about the potential impact of the proposed changes on their Treaty settlements.

Finally, the Tribunal reserved its jurisdiction to consider the proposed reforms further should they be enacted or if Cabinet’s broader decision that the ‘take into account’ Treaty/Tiriti weighting be the default preference in other legislation, resulting in further weakening of Treaty/Tiriti provisions beyond the statutes specifically in scope of its February 2026 decision.

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.

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 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.

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.