Search Inquiry Documents

The Kōpūtara Priority Report was released by the Tribunal on 27 March 2024 in pre-publication format. It concerns a claim about the Crown’s failure to grant title or access to the Kōpūtara reserve. This reserve is located at Lake Kōpūtara near Foxton and Hīmatangi Beach. It was set aside from the 240,000-acre Rangitikei–Manawatu purchase in 1870 but the claimants did not receive a title until 1964 or physical access until 2016. The Crown conceded that it breached the Treaty when it failed to grant title in a timely manner, and the Tribunal also found other breaches of Treaty principles.

The panel comprised Chief Judge Dr Caren Fox (presiding), Dr Grant Phillipson, Tania Te Rangingangana Simpson ONZM, and Dr Monty Soutar.

The Wai 1932 claim was led by Kōpūtara trustees Annabel Mikaere and Patrick Seymour. It was brought on behalf of the hapū Ngāti Parewahawaha, Ngāti Pareraukawa, Ngāti Kikopiri, Ngāti Tūranga, and Ngāti Tukorehe. The Kōpūtara trustees claimed that they were denied legal title and/or access to their own land and treasured resources for almost 150 years, during which time the environment of the reserve and lake was severely degraded.

The Crown accepted that it failed to provide the Kōpūtara reserve with access when it granted all the land surrounding the reserve to private owners. The Crown also acknowledged that this impacted the claimants’ economic, social, and cultural well-being and their ability to exercise ownership and kaitiakitanga. Depriving the claimants of access also disrupted their cultural relationship with the lake and reserve.

The Tribunal found that the Crown’s failure to provide access when it alone had the power to do so was a breach of the principles of the Treaty. The prejudicial result was that the claimants had no legal access until 1998 and no physical access until 2016. The Crown covered the trustees’ legal fees in the 1980s in a long-running litigation to obtain access. The Crown accepted at that time that it should compensate the claimants and fund the construction of a right of way, but it failed to do either. The Tribunal found that this further breached Treaty principles.

The Crown also accepted that it negatively affected the environment of the reserve and Lake Kōpūtara while the claimants were locked out. The Himatangi Drainage Scheme was established and funded by the Crown. It over-drained the lake and contributed to serious sand drift. The Crown also accepted that the Army’s use of the reserve as a live shell range in the 1940s and 1950s worsened the sand drift.

The Tribunal found that the Army’s damage to the reserve, the deficient legislative framework, and the excessive drainage before and by the Himatangi Drainage Scheme were key factors in the degradation of the reserve and lake. The Kōpūtara owners were further disadvantaged because they had no title when the Himatangi scheme was established and could not take action to stop sand drift even once they obtained a title due to their lack of access. The Tribunal found that the Crown failed to protect the reserve’s environment and contributed actively and significantly to the environmental degradation of the reserve and lake, in breach of Treaty principles.

The Tribunal found that the claimants suffered significant prejudice from these Treaty breaches. They lost access to the mahinga kai of the reserve and of Lake Kōpūtara, lost their ability to act as kaitiaki, and lost the ability to transmit customary knowledge to later generations. The claimants were also significantly prejudiced by the high degree of damage to the reserve and to their taonga, Lake Kōpūtara.

Overall, the Tribunal concluded that the Kōpūtara claim was well-founded. To remove or mitigate the harm caused by the Crown’s breaches, the Tribunal made several recommendations that can be found in chapter 5 of the report.

Released in September 2012, the Port Nicholson Block Urgency Report is the outcome of an urgent inquiry into Crown actions during and after negotiations to settle the historical claims of Taranaki Whānui ki te Upoko o te Ika (Taranaki Whānui) in the Port Nicholson block.

Claim 2235 was lodged in December 2009 by the trustees of the Port Nicholson Block Settlement Trust (PNBST), the post-settlement governance entity of Taranaki Whānui. In the course of negotiations, Taranaki Whānui agreed to release the Wellington Central Police Station from their proposed settlement package. This enabled the Crown to offer the police station to Ngāti Toa Rangatira (Ngāti Toa) as commercial redress. The claimants alleged that, in return for the release of the police station, the Crown ‘committed itself to recognise and uphold the mana whenua of Taranaki Whanui over the Port Nicholson Block by not offering any other property within the Block to Ngati Toa or any other iwi as commercial or cultural redress’.

The claimants further alleged that, in offering Ngāti Toa a number of items of commercial and cultural redress in the Port Nicholson block, the Crown had broken the undertakings that it gave to Taranaki Whānui to secure the release of the police station. They argued that this constituted a breach of Treaty principles that would become irreversible once the deed of settlement between the Crown and Ngāti Toa was finalised and redress enacted.

The Tribunal constituted to hear the claim comprised Judge Stephen Clark (presiding), the Honourable Sir Douglas Lorimer Kidd, Basil Morrison, and Sir Tamati Reedy. A hearing was held in June 2012 at the Tribunal’s offices in Wellington.

The Tribunal did not uphold the claim of Taranaki Whānui. However, it did find that the Crown, in exchange for the release of the Wellington Central Police Station, gave Taranaki Whānui undertakings not to offer Ngāti Toa any cultural redress and no further commercial redress within the Wellington CBD.

The Tribunal found that the Crown broke those undertakings. The Crown had offered Ngāti Toa a plaque at Parliament as cultural redress and a right of first refusal (RFR) over Crown properties and New Zealand Transport Agency administered properties in Wellington City, potentially including the Wellington CBD, as commercial redress. In so acting, the Crown breached the principles of the Treaty by failing to actively protect the interests of, and to act reasonably and with the utmost good faith towards, Taranaki Whānui.

In relation to the offer of cultural redress, the Tribunal stopped short of making a recommendation since Taranaki Whānui knew before signing their deed of settlement that there was an offer of cultural redress in the Wellington CBD to Ngāti Toa. The offer of a plaque at Parliament had also been withdrawn.

In relation to the offer of commercial redress, the Tribunal made a series of recommendations to the Crown to rectify the situation it had created, namely:

• That it review the offer of RFRs to Ngāti Toa over core Crown properties and New Zealand Transport Agency administered properties in Wellington City.
• That, if necessary, it amend the offer of RFRs to Ngāti Toa, to ensure that no commercial properties were made available via the RFR mechanism to Ngāti Toa within the Wellington CBD. The Tribunal was not concerned about properties located outside the CBD.
• If, as a result of implementing the above two recommendations, the commercial redress package on offer to Ngāti Toa was in any way diminished, the Crown should identify and offer alternative substitute commercial redress for Ngāti Toa.

The Tribunal also pointed to flaws in the Crown’s negotiation processes of the time, including the use of the ‘silo’ approach (whereby communication between different teams of Crown negotiators was minimal) and a lack of clarity in the language that Crown officials used. In the Tribunal’s view, both led to confusion and potentially created new grievances in the Port Nicholson block.

The urgent inquiry was triggered by the publication in 2011 of the report of the Early Childhood Education Taskforce, which, the claimants said, had not been consulted with them and had seriously damaged their reputation. The report, and Government policy development based on it, would cause irreparable harm to the kōhanga reo movement. The Tribunal endorsed the conclusion of the Wai 262 Tribunal’s report, Ko Aotearoa Tēnei, that urgent steps were needed to address recent Crown policy failures if te reo is to survive. The Tribunal noted that survival requires both Treaty partners – Māori and the Crown – to collaborate in taking whatever reasonable steps are required to achieve the shared aim of assuring the long-term health of te reo as a taonga of Māori.

This stage 1 report concerns a claim about Maori proprietary rights in freshwater bodies and geothermal resources and the Government's plan to sell shares in State-owned enterprises.

The Final Report on the MV Rena and Motiti Island Claims, originally released in pre-publication format in November 2014, is the outcome of two claims: Wai 2293 from the Ngāi Te Hapū Incorporated Society and Wai 2291 from the Motiti Rohe Moana Trust and the Mataatua District Māori Council. Both claims related to alleged Crown conduct in relation to the removal of the MV Rena from Otaiti (Astrolabe Reef) near Motiti Island.

The Tribunal held an urgent hearing in Tauranga from 30 June to 2 July 2014. The panel appointed to hear the claims comprised Judge Sarah Reeves (presiding), Ron Crosby, the Honourable Sir Douglas Kidd, and Professor Sir Tamati Reedy.

In October 2012, the Crown signed three deeds with the Rena owners to settle its claims for $27.6 million. The Tribunal’s final report focuses on the Crown’s conduct in entering one of those deeds, the wreck removal deed, which obliged the Crown to consider, in good faith, supporting an application by the owners for resource consent to leave the wreck on the reef. Such an application was lodged on behalf of the Rena owners in May 2014.

In the report, the Tribunal found that the obligations the Crown incurred under the wreck removal deed placed the Rena owners in a special position in the resource consent process in a way that had the potential to significantly affect Māori interests in Otaiti. Further, the Tribunal found that the Crown had signed the deed without having sufficient knowledge of Māori interests in the reef and without having consulted Māori, despite it being both practical and necessary for it to have done so.

The Tribunal considered that the Crown, by opting in August 2014 to partially oppose the Rena owners’ resource consent application, avoided the primary prejudice that could have arisen from its conduct in entering the wreck removal deed. However, the Tribunal also found that the Crown’s conduct diminished the Treaty partnership to the detriment of Māori and so prejudicially affected the claimants.

The Tribunal therefore found that the Crown’s conduct in entering the wreck removal deed without having consulted Māori breached the Treaty principles of partnership and mutual benefit. The Crown failed in its duty to act reasonably, honourably, and in good faith. The Tribunal made recommendations designed to remedy the prejudice that this caused the claimants.

The Tribunal’s final report followed an interim report released in July 2014 in anticipation of an all-of-government response to the owners’ resource consent application. In that report, the Tribunal found that the Crown’s consultation process with Māori as it prepared to decide its position on the owners’ resource consent application had breached the principles of good faith and partnership. The Tribunal’s interim report is included as an appendix to its final report.

Whaia Te Mana Motuhake/In Pursuit of Mana Motuhake: Report on the Māori Community Development  Act Claim, released on 5 December 2014, is the outcome of Wai 2417, a claim brought by the co-chairs of the New Zealand Māori Council and representatives of district Māori councils.
The claim focused on two issues: the Crown’s ongoing review of the Māori Community Development Act 1962 and the Crown’s role in the development and administration of the Māori wardens project, launched in 2007.
The Tribunal held an urgent hearing at Pipitea Marae in Wellington from 18 to 20 March 2014. The panel appointed to hear the claims comprised Deputy Chief Judge Caren Fox (presiding), Ron Crosby, Miriama Evans, Sir Hīrini Moko Mead, and Tania Simpson.
The Māori Community Development Act governs the New Zealand Māori Council, the district Māori councils, and Māori wardens. In 2009, the Minister of Māori Affairs instructed Te Puni Kōkiri / the Ministry of Māori Development to carry out a review of the Act. A report by the Māori Affairs select committee in 2010 recommended changes to the Act but advised that extensive consultation should be carried out with Māori before any proposed reforms were introduced.
In 2013, Te Puni Kōkiri decided to proceed with consultation hui on the 1962 Act, despite the objections of the newly appointed New Zealand Māori Council that it should be allowed to lead the review into its legislation. The Tribunal found that Te Puni Kōkiri’s decision to continue consultations in September 2013 was in contravention of Treaty principles.
The Tribunal also looked at the Crown’s development and administration of the Māori wardens project. The project, launched in 2007, provides funding, training, vehicles, and uniforms to support the voluntary community work of Māori wardens.
Originally, an advisory group and then a governance board provided Māori community oversight of the project, but since early 2011 this critical supervision has been absent. The Tribunal found this lack of provision for Māori community input breached the principles of the Treaty.
The Tribunal recommended that any future review of the Māori Community Development Act be led by Māori – specifically the New Zealand Māori Council – and that all reasonable costs flowing from the review and consultation process should be met by the Crown. Once the council had developed its own proposals for legislative reform and carried out extensive consultation with Māori communities, then it and the Crown should collaborate to reach a negotiated agreement.
The Tribunal further recommended that the Māori wardens project continue but that an interim advisory group or governance board be appointed from among the New Zealand Māori Council and Māori wardens to provide Māori community oversight of the funding, training, and other support delivered under the project.
 

On Friday 11 March 2016, the Waitangi Tribunal released He Kura Whenua ka Rokohanga: Report on Claims about the Reform of Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 in pre-publication format. The report is the outcome of three claims from Māori landowners.

Marise Lant, the named claimant for Wai 2478, is a former Māori Land Court staffer. Her claim was supported by Te Whānau a Kai. Cletus Maanu Paul, the named claimant for Wai 2480, is the co-chair of the New Zealand Māori Council and the chair of the Mataatua District Māori Council. His claim was made on behalf of the Mataatua District Māori Council and Moewhare. The Wai 2512 claimants were Lorraine Norris, Michael Beazley, William Kapea, Owen Kingi, Ani Taniwha, Justyne Te Tana, Pouri Harris, Vivienne Taueki, and Tamati Reid. They submitted their claim on behalf of a range of hapū from around the North Island.

The Tribunal hearings took place in Wellington from 11 to 13 November 2015 and on 9 December 2015. The panel appointed to hear the claims comprised Ron Crosby (presiding), Miriama Evans, Professor Rawinia Higgins, Professor Sir Hirini Mead, and Dr Grant Phillipson.

In June 2012, the Associate Minister of Māori Affairs appointed an independent review panel to review Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993. After the panel submitted its final report to the Associate Minister in July 2013, the Crown accepted the panel’s recommendations that the 1993 Act should be repealed and replaced by a new legislative regime with owner autonomy as the central focus. After nearly two years of development, the Crown released an exposure draft of the new Bill in May 2015 and invited submissions. The Bill proposed to replace existing protections for landowners exercised by the Māori Land Court with a new regime empowering ‘participating owners’.

In its report, the Tribunal considered both the review and reform process and the provisions of the new Bill, which the Crown intended to introduce to Parliament in March 2016.

The Tribunal found that the Crown would be in breach of Treaty principles if it did not ensure that there was properly-informed, broad-based support from Māori for the new Bill to proceed. Māori landowners, and their whānau, hapū, and iwi, would be prejudiced if the 1993 Act were repealed ‘against their wishes, and without ensuring adequate and appropriate arrangements for all the matters governed by that Act’.

With regard to the provisions of the Bill, the Tribunal noted that Treaty principles do not require any one specific form of protection mechanism, so long as it is effective and has the properly informed, broad-based support of Māori. However, the Tribunal concluded that a number of the Bill’s provisions nullified or weakened the mechanisms intended to ensure the retention of Māori land. That was inconsistent with the Crown’s duty of active protection.

Other aspects of the Bill relating to succession and compulsory dispute resolution, the Tribunal found, were also inconsistent with Treaty principles.

The Tribunal recommended that the Crown avoid prejudice to Māori by engaging further nationally via hui and written submissions, after ensuring that Māori are properly informed by means of empirical research. The Tribunal also made a number of other general and specific recommendations to the Crown concerning both the review and reform process and the new Bill.

The Ngāpuhi Mandate Inquiry Report was released in pre-publication form on 11 September 2015. It was the outcome of an inquiry into 15 claims, primarily from Ngāpuhi hapū and collectives of hapū, relating to the Crown’s recognition of the Tūhoronuku Independent Mandated Authority (the Tūhoronuku IMA) as having a mandate to enter negotiations to settle the historical claims of all Ngāpuhi.

The hearings, held under urgency, took place at Waitangi in December 2014 and Wellington in March 2015. The panel appointed to hear the claims was comprised of Judge Sarah Reeves (presiding officer), Dr Robyn Anderson, Mr Kihi Ngatai, and Lady Tureiti Moxon.

On 14 February 2014 the Crown officially recognised the Tūhoronuku IMA as having secured a mandate from the people of Ngāpuhi to enter settlement negotiations on their behalf. The claimants alleged that the Crown had pre-determined its decision to give this recognition. They did not support the Tūhoronuku IMA and argued that it undermined the rangatiratanga of their hapū. Of particular concern to the claimants was the inability for hapū to choose not to be represented by the Tūhoronuku IMA. This issue was exacerbated, in their view, by their inability to control who they were represented by within the structure of the Tūhoronuku IMA.

In the report, the Tribunal found that the Crown had not pre-determined its decision recognise the mandate secured by the Tūhoronuku IMA. It stated that the Crown’s involvement in the mandating process was typified by regular, genuine, and high-level engagement over a period of years and that there was ample evidence of the parties engaging in good faith to accommodate differences.

The Tribunal went on to find the strength of hapū autonomy is a defining characteristic of Ngāpuhi. As such, any entity seeking to represent Ngāpuhi in settlement negotiations had to produce clear evidence of hapū support for its mandate. The Crown had a primary Treaty duty to actively protect the rangatiratanga of Ngāpuhi hapū in deciding how and by whom they would be represented in settlement negotiations. The Crown failed in this duty by recognising the mandate of the Tūhoronuku IMA in the absence of clear evidence of hapū support for its mandate. Further, the structure and processes of the Tūhoronuku IMA undermined hapū and their ability to make crucial decisions affecting the settlement of their claims.

The Tribunal identified flaws in the structure and processes of the Tūhoronuku IMA and found the Crown to have breached the Treaty. It did not, however, believe that the Crown should withdraw its recognition of the mandate and require that a new mandate process take place. The Tribunal believed that there was broad support within Ngāpuhi for negotiations towards settlement and that flaws identified in the Tūhoronuku IMA could be remedied. Noting that ‘Strength comes from choice, not from lack of it’ the Tribunal recommended that the Crown halt negotiations with the Tūhoronuku IMA to give Ngāpuhi the opportunity to address the issues it has identified. In particular, the Tribunal considered it vitally important that the hapū of Ngāpuhi have the opportunity to determine whether they wish to continue being represented by the Tūhoronuku IMA.