The Waitangi Tribunal

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.