Te Rōpū Whakamana i te Tiriti o Waitangi
Ko te Rōpū Whakamana i Te Tiriti o Waitangi he kōmihana ruku tātari. Ka tuku tūtohutanga mō ngā kerēme i tukuna mai e ngāi Māori e pā ana ki te ture, ngā kaupapahere, ngā mahi a te Karauna, ngā hapanga rānei, e whakapaetia ana i takahi i ngā kī taurangi i roto i te Tiriti o Waitangi.
Karanga Rā trailer
Watch the full length documentary
POPULAR DOWNLOADS
Ngā Mātāpono/The Principles
Treaty Principles Report
Interim Report on the Crown’s Treaty Principles Bill and Treaty Clause Review Policies
He Whakaputanga me te Tiriti
The Declaration and the Treaty
Report on Stage 1 of Te Paparahi o Te Raki Inquiry
Ko Aotearoa Tēnei
Wai 262
Report into claims concerning New Zealand law and policy affecting Māori culture and identity
Rārangi Wā
1985
Tribunal gains retrospective jurisdiction to inquire into events back to 1840
1986
Te Reo Māori Claim Report
1987
1987 Lands Case
1996
Beginning of district inquiries
2015
Kaupapa inquiries commence
2030
Report Handover
Ngā nohoanga me ngā kaupapa e tū mai ana
23
Pipi
2025
-
24
Te Rau o te Tika - the Justice System Inquiry
WAI: 3060
Kaupapa
Hearing
Kaiwhakawā
Wainwright
26
Pipi
2025
The Constitutional Kaupapa Inquiry
WAI: 3300
Kaupapa
Wānanga
Kaiwhakawā
Fox
Ngā Pūrongo me ngā Pānui o Nāīanei
Wai 2180 LL
Report
He Whenua Karapotia, he Whenua Ngaro: Priority Report on Landlocked Māori Land in the Taihape Inquiry District
Wai 2180 - The Taihape - Rangitikei ki Rangipo Inquiry
He Whenua Karapotia, He Whenua Ngaro: Priority Report on Landlocked Māori Land in the Taihape Inquiry District is an early outcome of the Taihape: Rangitīkei ki Rangipō district inquiry. The Tribunal reported on landlocking as a matter of priority because it was a pressing issue in the inquiry district; more than 70 per cent of remaining Māori land holdings in Taihape – exceeding 50,000 hectares – were landlocked at the time of inquiry.
The broader Taihape district inquiry encompasses 46 historical claims about Crown actions and omissions in the area known as Inland Pātea, west of the Ruahine ranges and south of the Kaimanawa mountains. Hearings took place from 2016 to 2020. The inquiry panel comprised Justice Layne Harvey (presiding), Dr Paul Hamer, Dr Monty Soutar, and Professor Tā Pou Temara. Sir Douglas Kidd and the late Dr Angela Ballara were former panellists.
He Whenua Karapotia, He Whenua Ngaro considers whether the Crown was responsible for landlocking of Māori land in the inquiry district – which largely occurred between 1886 and 1912 – and has provided adequate remedies for the problem since. It also considers whether localised Crown actions in the 1980s and 1990s compounded access difficulties for some claimants with landlocked land.
On the first issue, the Tribunal concludes that landlocking occurred in Taihape because the Crown did not require the Native Land Court to preserve access to Māori land as it was partitioned. Upon the sale or lease of a partition with road access, therefore, blocks of Māori land lying beyond it usually became landlocked. Although from 1886 Māori could apply for access to their land as it passed through the court (or within five years thereafter), these measures were ineffective because they still gave the court discretion on whether to grant access and required Māori to pay the large cost of creating any access granted. The Tribunal finds that the Crown’s general failure to address the risk of landlocking in its native land legislation before 1912 breached the principles of active protection, partnership, and equity, and the expectation that Māori apply to the court to retain access to their own land, and pay for it, also undermined the Treaty guarantee of ‘full exclusive and undisturbed possession’ of land.
On the second issue, the Crown conceded that its remedies for landlocked Māori land from 1912 to 1975 were ineffective, inequitable, and indirectly discriminated against Māori. During this period, the Native Land Court/Māori Land Court could order retrospective access to landlocked Māori land. But, if the neighbouring land to be crossed had left Māori ownership before 1913, the court had no power to order access or could do so only with the neighbouring owner’s consent. This restriction in the law effectively removed the court’s ability to restore access to landlocked Māori land in Taihape, which had almost entirely become landlocked – as neighbouring land was sold – before 1913. While it accepts the Crown’s concessions, the Tribunal finds that the failure of the Crown’s remedies in this period breached the principle of redress.
The report goes on to conclude that, despite legislative improvements, the Crown’s remedies since 1975 have remained ineffective for Māori with landlocked land in Taihape. The key flaw in these remedies, the report argues, is that they have continued to place the huge cost of restoring access onto the owners of landlocked Māori land. This approach has been not only ineffective but unfair, treating the landowners no differently than owners of general land seeking to access landlocked land they have purchased. The Tribunal finds that the Crown’s failure to provide fair and effective remedies since 1975 breached the principles of equity and redress.
On localised issues, the Tribunal finds that the Crown ignored opportunities to enhance access to some landlocked Māori land in the 1980s and 1990s, when it negotiated better access to its nearby conservation land, and that this failure breached Treaty principles. The Crown also conceded that it breached Treaty principles by failing to consult the owners of neighbouring landlocked Māori land when it acquired certain blocks for defence purposes.
The Tribunal finds that whānau and hapū of the Taihape district have been significantly prejudiced by the lack of ready access to much of their remaining land, which has undermined their opportunities for economic development, their ability to exercise kaitiakitanga, and the intergenerational transmission of mātauranga relating to these lands.
To redress the prejudice caused by its Treaty breaches, the report recommends that the Crown establish a contestable fund to which Māori owners of landlocked land in Taihape can apply to achieve access. The fund would pay for access that may be granted by the Māori Land Court, including any compensation payable to neighbouring landowners. The Tribunal recommends that funds for this purpose should not be taken from the sum set aside to settle the district’s historical claims.
11 Jun 2025
Rahinga: 49.38MB
Wai 3400 Stg2 PP
Report
The Waitangi Tribunal has released a report on the Takutai Moana Financial Assistance Scheme
The Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act Coalition Changes Urgent Inquiry
On 6 June 2025, the Waitangi Tribunal released The Takutai Moana Act 2011 Urgent Inquiry Stage 2 Report in pre-publication format. This is the second report released for the Marine and Coastal (Takutai Moana) Act Coalition Changes Urgent Inquiry (Wai 3400). The report considered claimant allegations that the Crown had breached Treaty principles through the mismanagement of the Takutai Moana Financial Assistance Scheme, which supports applicants who seek to have their customary interests in the foreshore and seabed recognised under the Marine and Coastal (Takutai Moana) Act 2011.
The claimants alleged that the Crown failed to engage adequately with Māori in their process to review and amend the scheme for the 2024–25 financial year. The claimants argued that the current scheme settings have meant that the funding available for applicants is inadequate. Other issues raised included delayed payments, the removal of funding for interested parties, and funding caps that create a one-size-fits-all model for funding allocation, regardless of the complexities of individual cases. The claimants say that they have been unable to progress applications under the Act due to current scheme settings.
While the Crown accepted that the July 2024 changes to the funding scheme were challenging for the claimants, it did not concede that there had been any breach of Treaty principles. It argued that its amendments to the scheme addressed significant cost pressures that had arisen in the previous financial year and it maintained that its process in amending the scheme was reasonable in the circumstances and that it is not obliged under the Treaty to provide full funding to applicant groups.
The Tribunal found that elements of the Crown’s process in reviewing and amending the funding scheme were flawed. The Crown should have been cognisant earlier of the likely increase on financial pressures on the scheme, and there were significant problems with the modelling used to calculate the annual appropriation required to fund the scheme. The Tribunal found that, in its process to review and amend the scheme, the Crown failed to meet its Treaty obligations to act reasonably and in good faith and to actively protect Māori interests. This was in breach of Treaty principles.
The Tribunal further found that aspects of the current funding scheme settings were in breach of Treaty principles. By declining the additional funding required to cover the forecast costs of the 2024–25 financial year without considering the impact of this on Māori applicants, Cabinet had not conducted a Treaty-compliant balancing exercise, in breach of the principles of partnership, good government, and active protection.
Several measures were introduced to deal with the shortfall in funding, including budgeted workplans, changing the funding available for lawyers, and introducing a funding cap for each application. The Tribunal commented that the way in which the budgeted work-plan requirement was introduced created significant confusion and disruption but did not find the requirement for a workplan to be inherently inconsistent with Treaty principles. However, the Tribunal found that the Crown did not undertake a proper balancing exercise when making changes to rates of funding for lawyers, in breach of its Treaty obligation to actively protect Māori interests. The Tribunal was concerned by the ‘rudimentary’ approach taken to funding caps, noting that the caps themselves were caused by Cabinet’s decision to decline the additional funding needed.
The Tribunal found that significant prejudice had arisen due to the Crown’s Treaty breaches. The funding changes were introduced quickly, without consultation, impacting applications on the verge of hearing. Applications were delayed while budgeted workplans were awaiting approval. Research for applications was delayed, and reduced funding for research undermined the strength of applications. Funding changes also limited applicants’ access to legal representation.
To prevent similar prejudice being felt by applicants in the next financial year, the Tribunal recommended that the Crown engage meaningfully with Māori before decisions on funding are made. When making these decisions, the Crown must properly consider Māori interests and potential impacts on Māori in the wider context of the Act’s regime. In making decisions, the Crown must keep Māori informed and provide its reasoning. The Tribunal reiterated its recommendation in an earlier report that the statutory deadline for applications be removed from the Act, as this has put financial pressure on the scheme.
06 Jun 2025
Rahinga: 1.22MB
Wai 3365
Report
The Māori Wards and Constituencies Urgent Inquiry Report: Pre-publication Version
The Māori Wards and Constituencies Urgent Inquiry
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.
04 Jun 2025
Rahinga: 2.09MB
Tribunal
News
Tribunal releases report on the Takutai Moana Financial Assistance Scheme
6 Pipi 2025 11:59 AM
The Waitangi Tribunal has released a report on the Takutai Moana Financial Assistance Scheme
Pānuihia te pito kōrero
Tribunal releases report on proposed Regulatory Standards Bill
16 Hara 2025 4:58 PM
The report concerns the proposed Regulatory Standards Bill, which aims to ‘improve the quality of regulation’ and would introduce several principles of ‘good law-making’.
Pānuihia te pito kōrero