Search Inquiry Documents | Waitangi Tribunal

Wai 3513 PP

Report

He Tangata, he Whenua: The Citizenship Report –Pre-publication Version

Citizenship (Ruddock) Urgent claim

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.

30 Oct 2025

Size: 2.18MB

Wai 3327 PP

Report

TAKU REO KURA, TAKU REO KAHURANGI – TE RERENGA I MUA I TE WHAKAPUTA

Te Reo i te Kāwanatanga Ruku Tātari Ohotata / Te Reo in the Public Sector Urgent Inquiry

Nō te 23 o Whiringa-ā-nuku 2025, i puta i Te Rōpū Whakamana i te Tiriti o Waitangi a TAKU REO KURA, TAKU REO KAHURANGI, he pūrongo mō ngā kaupapahere a te Karauna e pā ana ki te whakamahinga o te reo Māori ki roto i te ratonga tūmatanui. I whai whakaaro tēnei pūrongo ohotata ki ngā kerēme maha nā ōna kaupapahere, ritenga, mahi, hapa hoki, i whakangoikore te Karauna i te whakamahinga o te reo ki roto i te ratonga tūmatanui, he mea takahi i ngā mātāpono o te Tiriti/the Treaty. I arotahi te pūrongo ki ngā kaupapahere matua e toru o te Karauna:

ki te whakangoikore, ki te tango rānei i te whakamahinga o te reo i ngā ingoa o ngā tari kāwanatanga me ngā hinonga Karauna;
ki te whakamātāmua i te reo Pākehā i ngā whakawhitinga kōrero o te ratonga tūmatanui; ā
ki te whakawhāiti i te āheinga ki ngā utu tāpui mō te reo Māori i te ratonga tūmatanui.

I whakamahara te pūrongo, ahakoa i te tīmatanga he takohanga ngā kaupapahere e rua tuatahi i roto i te whakaaetanga Haumi i waenganui i a Nāhinara me Aotearoa Tuatahi, i hohoro te huri hei kaupapahere a te Kāwanatanga, ā, ka whakatinanahia e ngā Minita takitahi. I ara mai te kaupapahere tuatoru i tētahi kōrero a te Minita mō te Ratonga Tūmatanui ki te hunga pāpāho, he tohu o te takune a te Karauna.

I whakapae ngā kaikerēme i whakararu ngā mahi a te Karauna i te mana o te reo hei taonga, ā, i whakamōrearea i ngā whakapaunga kaha ki te whakarauora i te reo i roto i ngā tekau tau maha. Ahakoa i whakaae te Karauna he taonga te reo Māori, kāore te Karauna i whakaae i takahia ōna takohanga o te Tiriti/the Treaty. I tohe te Karauna kāore e nui te pānga o āna mahi tautoko i te reo Māori. I whakahē Te Rōpū Whakamana i te tūnga o te Karauna.

I kite Te Rōpū Whakamana nā ēnei kaupapahere e toru i takahi te Karauna i ngā mātāpono maha o te Tiriti/the Treaty – tae atu ki te tino rangatiratanga, te rangapū mahitahi, te matapopore moroki, te wairua tōkeke, me te kāwanatanga pai. Hei tā Te Rōpū Whakamana, nā te whakangoikore i te whakamahinga o te reo i te ratonga tūmatanui, i whakapuaki te Karauna i te korenga o tōna ū ki te whakarauora i te reo, ā, i whakakaha anō i ngā tautika-kore i waenganui i te mana o te reo Pākehā me te reo Māori i Aotearoa New Zealand. I whakamahara Te Rōpū Whakakamana e herea ana te Karauna ki te whakatika i te noho mōrearea o te reo, kaua ki te turaki i te reo, i raro i te Tiriti/the Treaty me ngā takohanga ā-ture a te Karauna i roto i Te Ture mō te Reo Māori 2016, ā ka mutu, kāore te Karauna i whiriwhiri kōrero ki te Māori mō ēnei panonitanga ki ngā kaupapahere i whakaarahia. Mō ēnei take, i tua atu i ētahi atu take, i kite Te Rōpū Whakamana nā ngā mahi a te Karauna i takahia te Tiriti/the Treaty me ōna mātāpono.

I kite Te Rōpū Whakamana nā ngā takahitanga a te Karauna ki te Tiriti/the Treaty kua hua mai te whakahāweatanga ki te Māori, tae atu ki ngā Māori e whakamahi ana i ngā ratonga tūmatanui. I kī Te Rōpū Whakamana nā te noho mōrearea o te reo Māori me whakapakari ake i te reo, ā, me akiaki i tōna whakamahinga. I kite Te Rōpū Whakamana nā ngā mahi a te Karauna i whakaitihia ēnei whāinga, ā, he mea whakahāwea i te whakarauoratanga o te reo Māori. I whakamahara anō Te Rōpū Whakamana ki ngā āwangawanga i hua mai i ngā mahi a te Karauna, arā i whakatinanahia i roto i ngā kōrero taunaki a ngā kaikerēme ki mua i Te Rōpū Whakamana.

Hei whakatika i te whakahāweatanga i hua mai, i tuku Te Rōpū Whakamana i ngā tūtohunga maha. I karangahia kia whakamutua ināia tonu nei ngā mahi ki te whakangoikore i ngā ingoa reo Māori o ngā tari me te whakamahinga o te reo ki ngā whakawhitinga kōrero o te Kāwanatanga. I tūtohu anō Te Rōpū Whakamana kia whakapakarihia te takotoranga o ngā kupu o Te Ture mō Te Reo Māori 2016, kia kaha ake ngā haepapa a te Karauna ki te tiaki me te whakauka i te reo Māori. I tūtohu anō Te Rōpū Whakamana kia panoni te Karauna i te 2024 Tauākī Kaupapahere Rāngaimahi Kāwanatanga, kia haere tonu ngā utu tāpui mō te reo ahakoa he herenga ki tō rātou tūranga mahi ngā pūkenga reo.

Hei whakaatu i te noho o te reo Māori ki te iho o tēnei ruku tātari, ka whakaputahia te pūrongo o Te Rōpū Whakamana ki roto i te reo Pākehā me te reo Māori.

On 23 October 2025, the Waitangi Tribunal released TAKU REO KURA, TAKU REO KAHURANGI, a report on Crown policies concerning the use of te reo Māori in the public service. This urgent report considered several claims that, through its policies, practices, actions, and omissions, the Crown has discouraged the use of te reo in the public service, in breach of the principles of te Tiriti/the Treaty. The report focused on three main Crown policies:

to deprioritise or remove from common usage te reo from the names of public service departments and Crown entities;
to prioritise communications in English in the public service; and
to limit access to te reo Māori allowances in the public service.

The report noted that, while the first two matters were initially commitments in the 2023 coalition agreement between National and New Zealand First, they quickly became Government policy and were applied by individual Ministers. The third policy arose from a comment to the media by the Minister for the Public Service, which marked it as a statement of the Crown’s intent.

The claimants asserted that the Crown’s actions undermined the status of te reo as a taonga and threatened decades of hard work to revitalise the language. While the Crown agreed that te reo Māori is a taonga, it did not accept that it had breached its te Tiriti/Treaty obligations. The Crown argued that its actions would not have a significant impact on its support for te reo Māori. The Tribunal rejected the Crown’s position.

The Tribunal found that the Crown breached several principles of te Tiriti/the Treaty through these three policies – including those of tino rangatiratanga, partnership, active protection, equity, and good government. The Tribunal commented that, by deprioritising the use of te reo in the public service, the Crown had expressed a lack of commitment to the revitalisation of te reo and had reinforced existing inequities between the status of English and te reo Māori in Aotearoa New Zealand. The Tribunal noted that the Crown is obliged to take active steps to address the vulnerable state of te reo, not to contribute to its decline, under both te Tiriti/the Treaty and the Crown’s own legislative commitments in Te Ture mō te Reo Māori 2016. The Tribunal similarly observed that the Crown’s intention to limit access to te reo Māori allowances did not align with the standards set in Te Ture mō Te Reo Māori 2016 and that the Crown had failed to consult with Māori about these proposed policy changes. For these reasons, among others, the Tribunal found that the Crown’s conduct had breached te Tiriti/the Treaty and its principles.

The Tribunal found that the Crown’s breaches of te Tiriti/the Treaty have caused prejudice to Māori, including to Māori as users of public services. It commented that the fragility of te reo Māori means that the language must be bolstered and its use encouraged. The Tribunal found that the Crown’s actions have detracted from these goals in a way that is prejudicial to the overall revitalisation of te reo Māori. The Tribunal also noted the emotional distress caused by the Crown’s actions, manifested in the evidence claimants gave before the Tribunal.

To address the prejudice caused, the Tribunal made several recommendations. It called for an immediate reversal of actions to deprioritise te reo Māori agency names and the use of te reo Māori in Government communications. It also recommended that the wording of Te Ture mō Te Reo Māori 2016 be strengthened to make the Crown’s responsibilities to protect and preserve te reo Māori more explicitly obligatory. The Tribunal further recommended that the Crown amend the 2024 Government Workforce Policy Statement so that the payment of te reo allowances to officials continues regardless of whether te reo skills are a requirement of their role.

To reflect the centrality of te reo Māori in the inquiry, the Tribunal’s report was released in both English and te reo Māori.

24 Oct 2025

Size: 3.93MB

Wai 3300 Pt3 PP

Report

Ngā Mātāpono/The Principles: Part III of the Report of the Tomokia Ngā Tatau o Matangireia – the Constitutional Kaupapa Inquiry Panel on the Crown’s Treaty Principles Bill and Treaty Clause Review Policies

Wai 3300 - Tomokia ngā tatau o Matangireia - the Constitutional Kaupapa Inquiry

On Wednesday 22 October 2025, the Waitangi Tribunal released Ngā Mātāpono/The Principles: Part III of the Report of the Tomokia Ngā Tatau o Matangireia – the Constitutional Kaupapa Inquiry Panel on the Crown’s Treaty Principles Bill and Treaty Clause Review Policies. Part III completes the report, with the Tribunal’s final chapter (chapter 7).

This report concerns the Crown’s decisions on the Treaty clause review since August 2024. The Tribunal found that, if the Crown proceeds with the Treaty clause review as currently planned, this would breach the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. The Tribunal found that Māori could be prejudiced if the review proceeds in its present form. The potential risks of negative impacts on Māori rights and interests, the Māori–Crown relationship, and the durability of Treaty settlements were all disclosed in the Crown documents provided to the Tribunal. The Tribunal found, however, that it is not too late to refocus the review and its process. The Tribunal said that, if the review focuses on the clarity of Treaty clauses, allowing enough time for robust policy analysis and full engagement with inclusion of Māori in decision-making, the review could be positive and benefit both Māori and the Crown.

The Tribunal noted that there were mixed messages about the purpose of the review. At present, Treaty clauses will have to meet a test in the review that they promote “the fundamental human rights and equality of all New Zealanders and the importance of equality before the law for all in a modern democratic society”. The Tribunal stated that this requirement is already provided for in international and domestic law and is not a principle of the Treaty. It is not based on any policy analysis to justify it, and it breaches the Crown’s Treaty duty to actively protect the rights and interests of Māori.

The Tribunal also found that ensuring clarity of Treaty clauses does not mean repealing those clauses. The current intention to repeal clauses that are considered unnecessary in a review of this particular kind would be inconsistent with the principles of partnership and active protection.

The Tribunal also found that the review as currently planned had been truncated and would leave inadequate time for robust Treaty/te Tiriti policy analysis, engagement with Māori, and involvement of Māori in decision-making. This would be inconsistent with the principle of partnership.

The Tribunal further found that the legal protection of Māori Treaty/te Tiriti rights and interests could be reduced or removed in some key statutes. The Crown was aware that the review could cause “discriminatory outcomes” for Māori. The Tribunal found that such discriminatory outcomes were likely at present and would breach the principle of equity unless changes to the review’s process and scope were made. Moreover, the Tribunal found that the review would breach the principle of redress should the durability of Treaty settlements be undermined.

The Tribunal made several recommendations to the Crown, based on its findings. In summary, the Tribunal recommended that the Crown:

focus the review on clarity of provisions;
expand the time for engagement with Māori and involvement of Māori in decision-making;
take repeals off the table;
remove the requirement that Treaty clauses must provide for “the promotion of the fundamental human rights and equality of all New Zealanders and the importance of equality before the law for all in a modern democratic society”;
provide the resources necessary for Māori to participate effectively as demanded in a large-scale review; and
if amendments or repeals are planned, allow co-design or full reflection of Māori views in decisions, especially in light of the Crown’s partnership obligations and the constitutional dialogue that Treaty clauses represent.

23 Oct 2025

Size: 6.24MB

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

Size: 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

Size: 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

Size: 2.09MB

Wai 663

Report

The Te Aroha Maunga Settlement Process Report

Te Aroha Lands claim

This report currently has no report summary.

29 May 2025

Size: 5.49MB

Wai 3470 PP

Report

The Interim Regulatory Standards Bill Urgent Report – Pre-publication Version

the Regulatory Standards Bill Urgent Inquiry

The Interim Regulatory Standards Bill Urgent Report concerns the proposed Regulatory Standards Bill, which, subject to Cabinet approval, may be introduced to the House of Representatives on 19 May 2025. The Bill is derived from the commitment in the New Zealand National Party–ACT New Zealand coalition agreement to pass, as soon as practicable, a Regulatory Standards Act to ‘improve the quality of regulation’. The Act would introduce several principles of ‘good law-making’ by which future legislation and regulation would be measured. It also allows for prior legislation and regulation to be reviewed and examined for consistency with these principles.

The Crown accepted that its policy development for the Bill occurred without targeted engagement with Māori. The Tribunal found that this was in violation of the Crown’s obligation to consult with Māori in good faith and therefore violated Treaty principles of partnership and active protection.

Regarding the substance of the Bill, the Tribunal found that, if it were to be enacted, it would be of constitutional significance, as it seeks to influence the way Parliament makes law, and therefore it is inherently relevant to Māori.

The Tribunal therefore found that, if the Regulatory Standards Act were enacted without meaningful consultation with Māori, it would constitute a breach of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, and specifically the principles of partnership and active protection. The Crown would also be in breach of Treaty principles if it were to introduce the Bill to Parliament without any further consultation with Māori.

The Tribunal found that these breaches have caused, or will cause, prejudice to Māori and that the Crown’s action in progressing the policy without engaging with Māori adequately has been damaging to the relationship between Māori and the Crown. The Tribunal also found that the absence of meaningful engagement with Māori on the potential but unknown impacts of the legislation has caused stress and uncertainty, resulting in further prejudice.

The Tribunal recommended that the Crown immediately halt the advancement of the Regulatory Standards Bill to allow for meaningful engagement with Māori and the dialogue envisioned by the Treaty partnership. In particular, the Crown should meaningfully engage with Māori on whether the proposed legislation is necessary, what further exemptions in the Bill may be required to protect Māori rights and interests, and the potential impact of the proposed ‘rule of law’ principle on Government measures in place to pursue equitable outcomes for Māori.

The Tribunal reserved its jurisdiction to reconsider these issues should the Regulatory Standards Bill be enacted.

The panel comprised Judge Nathan Milner (presiding), Vanessa Eparaima MNZM, Derek Fox, Dr Hana O’Regan ONZM, Kevin Prime MBE, CNZM, and Professor Emeritus David Williams.

16 May 2025

Size: 943KB

Wai 1718

Report

Kei Ahotea Te Aho Matua

Kura Kaupapa Māori (Dewes) Claim

Nō te rā nei ka puta i Te Rōpū Whakamana i Te Tiriti o Waitangi tōna pūrongo e kīia ana ko Kei Ahotea Te Aho Matua e pā ana ki te tono kōhukihuki i kawea e Te Rūnanga Nui, te māngai mō ngā whānau Kura Kaupapa Māori Te Aho Matua. E whakapae ana ngā kaitono kīhai i tika te whai wāhitanga, te whai whakaarotanga atu a te Karauna ki Te Rūnanga Nui, ki ngā Kura Kaupapa Māori rānei i roto i te tukanga arotake me te whakahou i Ngā Kura o Āpōpō, mai i te tau 2018 ki te tau 2022.

Kua tuhia tēnei pūrongo ki te reo Māori. I hua ai tēnei whakatau whai muri i ngā wānanga ki ngā kaitono me te Karauna, me te whai tautoko i a rātau. Kua tāpirihia ki tētahi āpitihanga ngā upoko 3 ki te 7 kei roto i te reo Pākehā o te pūrongo, kia mārama ake ai te pūrongo.

Ko te whakatau a te Taraipiunara, he maha ngā takahi a te Karauna i ngā mātāpono o te Tiriti e pā ana ki te noho rangapū me te whakamarumaru i te wā o te arotake me te whakahou i Ngā Kura o Āpōpō. Kīhai te tukanga a te Karauna i eke – mai i te whakatau ki te whakaara i te arotakenga i te tau 2018, tae noa ki te pūrongo mātauranga nō te Hereturikōkā 2022 i whakatakoto i ngā kōwhiringa mō te whakahou ki ngā Minita a Hipkins rāua ko Davis. Kei ngā upoko 4 me te 5 o te pūrongo ngā taipitopito mō ēnei kitenga, me te kōrero pono e hāngai ana. Ko tētahi āhuatanga i kitea e te Taraipiunara, kāore i ea te whai wāhi a ngā kaitono ki ngā mahi waihanga kaupapa here, me te koretake rawa o te Karauna ki te whakamōhio atu ki te aronga o ngā mahi kaupapa here.

I kitea e te Taraipiunara e rua ngā huarahi nui i takahi ai ngā whakaritenga kaupapa here a te Karauna i ōna here Tiriti ki ngā Kura Kaupapa Māori Te Aho Matua whai muri i te whakahou i Ngā Kura o Āpōpō. Tuatahi, kīhai te Karauna i whakatinana i te rautaki me ngā kaupapa here e hāngai ana ki te whakatika i ngā hiahia o ngā Kura Kaupapa Māori, he mea takahi i ngā mātāpono o te noho rangapū, te whakamarumaru, te wairua tōkeke me te kōwhiringa. Tuarua, i kitea e te Taraipiunara he mea takahi ngā whakaritenga onāianei i ngā mātapono Tiriti o te noho rangapū me te wairua tōkeke nā te mea kāore Te Rūnanga Nui – te māngai mō ngā whānau Kura Kaupapa Māori Te Aho Matua – i whai mana ki ngā whakatau whakamutunga mō ngā kaupapa here e pā ana ki ngā Kura Kaupapa Māori.

Nā ngā takahitanga a te Karauna i whakahāwea nuitia ngā kaitono, me te mea anō kāore i ngā kaitono te mana e tika ana kei a rātau i raro i te rangapū mahitahi o te Tiriti, ki te waihanga i ngā kaupapa here e hāngai ana ki ngā Kura Kaupapa Māori Te Aho Matua.

Hei whakatika i tēnei hēnga he maha ngā tūtohunga a te Taraipiunara, tae atu ki te tohutohu kia mahitahi te Karauna me ngā kaitono ki te waihanga i ngā kaupapa here mō ngā Kura Kaupapa Māori Te Aho Matua ki ngā kaupapa pēnei i te hanga whare, te tautoko i te marau, me te whakamahere whatunga. Mō te pae tawhiti, e tūtohu ana te Taraipiunara kia ū te Karauna ki te whakatū i tētahi rōpū mātauranga whaimana motuhake – ko te tikanga ka waihangatia tōna korahi me āna mahi ki te taha o te hunga whaipānga Māori, tae atu ki ngā kaitono. Kei te upoko 7 te roanga ake o ngā taipitopito mō ngā tūtohunga a te Taraipiunara.

Kei Ahotea Te Aho Matua is a report on an urgent claim bought by Te Rūnanga Nui and the Kura Kaupapa Māori Te Aho Matua whānau it represents. The claimants allege that the Crown did not sufficiently involve or consider Te Rūnanga Nui or Kura Kaupapa Māori in the Tomorrow’s Schools review and reform process, from 2018 to 2022.

The report is produced in te reo Māori. This decision was made following discussion with, and support from, the claimants and the Crown. English versions of chapters 3 to 7 of the report are included in an appendix, to assist in understanding of the report.

The Tribunal found the Crown breached Treaty principles of partnership and active protection in several instances during the Tomorrow’s Schools review and reform. It found the Crown’s process throughout lacking – from the decision to initiate the review in 2018 to the August 2022 education report that provided Ministers Hipkins and Davis options for reform. These findings, and the relevant factual narrative, are set out in detail in chapters 4 and 5 of the report. A consistent theme the Tribunal found was insufficient involvement of the claimants in key policy development steps, and very poor communication from the Crown on the direction of policy work.

The Tribunal found that the Crown’s policy arrangements in the wake of the Tomorrow’s Schools reforms breach the Crown’s Treaty obligations to Kura Kaupapa Māori Te Aho Matua in two critical ways. First, the Crown has failed to implement bespoke policy and strategy to address the needs of Kura Kaupapa Māori, in breach of the principles of partnership, active protection, equity, and options. Secondly, the Tribunal found current arrangements breach Treaty principles of partnership and active protection because power to make final decisions on policy settings affecting Kura Kaupapa Māori is not shared with Te Rūnanga Nui, who act on behalf of Kura Kaupapa Māori Te Aho Matua whānau.

The Crown’s breaches caused considerable prejudice to the claimants, including that the claimants do not have the powers they should, under the Treaty partnership, to shape policy applicable to Kura Kaupapa Māori Te Aho Matua.

To remedy this harm, the Tribunal made several recommendations, including that the Crown work with the claimants to develop specific policies for Kura Kaupapa Māori Te Aho Matua in areas like property, curriculum support, and network planning. In the longer term, the Tribunal recommended that the Crown commit to establishing a stand-alone Kaupapa Māori education authority, the precise scope and functions of which are to be developed with Māori stakeholders, including the claimants.

31 Mar 2025

Size: 15.73MB

Hautupua PP

Report

Hautupua: Te Aka Whai Ora (Maaori Health Authority) Priority Report, Part 1 — Pre-publication Version

Wai 2575 - The Health Services and Outcomes Kaupapa Inquiry

On Friday 29 November 2024, the Tribunal released Hautupua: Te Aka Whai Ora (Maaori Health Authority) Priority Report, Part 1 in pre-publication format. The report was the result of a priority inquiry granted in May 2024 into claims concerning the Crown’s disestablishment of Te Aka Whai Ora – the Māori Health Authority. These claims were previously the subject of an urgent inquiry that was vacated when the Crown introduced the Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Māori Health Authority) Amendment Bill on 27 February. The panel for the inquiry was Judge Damian Stone (presiding), Professor Susy Frankel FRSNZ, Professor Tom Roa, Tania Simpson ONZM, and Linda Tuhiwai Smith CNZM.

The Tribunal decided to inquire into and report on the priority claims in two parts: the first part concerns the disestablishment and its impacts only. The second part will focus on the Crown’s alternative plans for Māori health. Part 1 of the Te Aka Whai Ora (Māori Health Authority) priority inquiry was conducted on the papers with no in-person hearing.

The Tribunal found that the Crown breached the principles of tino rangatiratanga, kāwanatanga, good government, partnership, active protection, and redress. The Crown did not act in good faith when disestablishing Te Aka Whai Ora as it did not consult with Māori. Without consulting its Tiriti/Treaty partner and without substantive advice from officials, the Crown decided that Te Aka Whai Ora was not required, despite knowledge of grave Māori health inequities.

Māori did not agree with the Crown’s decisions but were denied the right to self-determine what is best for them and hauora Māori. Instead, the Crown implemented its own agenda – one based on political ideology, rather than evidence – without even following its own process for the development and implementation of legislative reform. As the establishment of Te Aka Whai Ora was a form of redress for the Crown’s long-standing failure to reflect tino rangatiratanga in the health system, its unilateral decision to remove effectively took that redress away. The Tribunal found that these Tiriti/Treaty breaches caused significant prejudice to Māori.

The Tribunal recommended that the Crown commit to revisiting the option of a stand-alone Māori health authority, consult extensively with Māori in the development of any alternative plans, and always undertake proper regulatory impact analysis in matters that affect Māori health.

28 Nov 2024

Size: 1.59MB