Search Inquiry Documents

On 13 September 2024, the Waitangi Tribunal released The Takutai Moana Act 2011 Urgent Inquiry Stage 1 Report (Wai 3400). The inquiry was granted urgency in the Waitangi Tribunal’s inquiry programme. The hearing was held in August 2024.

The Tribunal panel comprised Judge Miharo Armstrong (presiding), Ron Crosby, Professor Rawinia Higgins, and Tā Pou Temara. The report was the first report in a two-stage inquiry. This first stage considered the Treaty compliance of the policy development process that the Government followed in seeking to amend the Takutai Moana Act 2011, along with the proposed amendments, and whether these caused prejudice to Māori. The second stage will address the alleged mismanagement of funding for applications for customary marine title under the Act.

Overall, the Tribunal found that the Crown’s actions are such a gross breach of the Treaty that it is an illegitimate exercise of kāwanatanga. The Tribunal cautioned the Crown that, on the strength of the evidence it received, to proceed now on its current course would significantly endanger the Māori–Crown relationship.

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

• the Crown halt its current efforts to amend the Takutai Moana Act;
• the Crown make a genuine effort for meaningful engagement with Māori; and
• the focus of this engagement should be on the perceived issues of permissions for resource consents, rather than interrupting the process of awarding customary marine title.

The Tribunal emphasised that the recommendations should be implemented to restore a fair and reasonable balance between Māori interests and those of the public in te takutai moana.

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.

The Waitangi Tribunal has released The Oranga Tamariki (Section 7AA) Urgent Inquiry 10 May 2024 Report in pre-publication format.

On 29 April 2025, The Tribunal issued an interim report, The Oranga Tamariki (Section 7AA) Urgent Inquiry Report, in pre-publication form.

The report concerns claims submitted to the Tribunal under urgency regarding the Crown’s policy to repeal section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989. Section 7AA imposes specific duties on the chief executive of Oranga Tamariki so as to provide a practical commitment to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi

A key policy objective of section 7AA was to reduce the disproportionate number of Māori entering into care and to improve outcomes for those tamariki already in care. Under section 7AA, iwi or Māori organisations may enter into strategic partnerships with the chief executive. There are 10 strategic partnership agreements under section 7AA currently in place, as well as nine relationships with post-settlement governance entities, some of whom are also strategic partners.

The claimants and interested parties argued that the repeal of section 7AA and the absence of consultation with Māori and the Crown’s strategic partners breached the Crown’s Treaty duties.

Because of its interim status, the report contains no findings or recommendations but it raises three matters for the government’s consideration:

• the Tribunal’s concern that the government’s singular focus on the implementation of a commitment made in one of the coalition agreements has caused it to disregard its obligations under the Treaty;
• the Tribunal’s concern that the rushed repeal of section 7AA will cause actual harm; and
• the availability of a more principled way forward under section 448B of the Act.

The panel comprised Judge Michael Doogan (presiding), Kim Ngarimu, and Tā William Te Rangiua (Pou) Temara.

The Waitangi Tribunal’s report into the Crown’s response to contemporary Māori homelessness, Kāinga Kore, examines Crown policies and strategies from 2009 (when the Crown introduced its first comprehensive definition of homelessness) to 2021 (when the Tribunal’s hearings took place).

The Tribunal finds that the Crown breached its Treaty obligations during this period by:

• Its failure to adequately consult with Māori in the development of its homelessness definition in 2009 and to rectify this in the period since. This was a breach of the Crown’s Treaty duty of consultation.
• Its prolonged failure to adequately collect data on homelessness in New Zealand. This breached both the principles of good government and active protection.
• Its failure to provide homeless Māori with housing that meets a range of basic standards in terms of amenities, comfort, and security. This was a breach of the principle of active protection. The Crown also breached the principle of equity through the growing over-representation of Māori with unmet housing need, and it breached the principle of good government by its failure to implement, or monitor the progress of, its Māori housing strategy He Whare Āhuru.
• The narrowness of its consultation over the Homelessness Action Plan and the Māori and Iwi Housing Innovation Framework (MAIHI).
• Its failure, with regard to rangatahi homelessness specifically, to take vigorous action to protect such a vulnerable group. This breached the principle of active protection. It also breached the principle of good government through its failure to obtain adequate data on rangatahi homelessness.

The Tribunal also found that the Crown’s acknowledgement that ongoing ‘fragmentation’ and ‘congestion’ within the housing system was undermining Māori housing ambitions confirmed that it had breached the principle of good government.

Kāinga Kore does not examine (or make findings on) broader housing issues which the Tribunal is yet to hear evidence and submissions on. These will be considered later in the inquiry and include the historical provision of housing to Māori, the longstanding barriers to building on whenua Māori, and the advent of the welfare state in the 1930s and its later abandonment in the neo-liberal political economy of the 1980s and beyond.

The Housing and Policy Services Kaupapa Inquiry (Wai 2750) was formally initiated in July 2019. The following year, the Tribunal confirmed that stage one would address contemporary Māori homelessness in a targeted way. This decision reflected the parties’ wishes and recognised that homelessness was the most acute and urgent housing issue Māori were facing, especially with the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic. Seventy-nine claims were eligible for this initial stage of the inquiry and a further 21 parties were granted interested party status. Five hearings were held between March and November 2021. Witnesses appeared for the Crown from five separate agencies and technical witnesses were called by the claimants, but no research was commissioned for this part of the inquiry.

The panel for the Housing and Policy Services Kaupapa Inquiry comprises Judge Craig Coxhead (presiding), Dr Paul Hamer, Prue Kapua, and Basil Morrison. Hearings for the next stage of the inquiry are due to begin in 2024.

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.

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.

The Waitangi Tribunal’s Te Mana Whatu Ahuru: Report on Te Rohe Pōtae Claims is the outcome of 277 Treaty of Waitangi claims submitted by Māori of the Te Rohe Pōtae inquiry district. This district extends from Whāingaroa Harbour to northern Taranaki, and inland to the Waikato River and Taumarunui.

The claims in the report were brought to the Waitangi Tribunal on behalf of a diverse range of groups and individuals. They alleged that the Crown breached the principles of the Treaty through a range of actions that resulted in significant prejudice to claimants and their tūpuna. Of the claims that would eventually come to be part of the Te Rohe Pōtae District Inquiry, the first was submitted to the Tribunal in March 1987 by Margaret Makariti Poinga on behalf of herself and members of Ngāti Hikairo. The last was the claim of Angeline Greensill concerning Māui’s dolphin and their threat of extinction, submitted to the Tribunal in September 2014.

The Te Rohe Pōtae Tribunal panel comprised Judge David Ambler (presiding officer), Sir Hirini Mead, Professor Pou Temara, John Baird, and Dr Aroha Harris. After the death of Judge Ambler in 2017, Deputy Chief Judge Caren Fox was appointed to the role of presiding officer.

The Tribunal heard 23 weeks of evidence, including six Ngā Kōrero Tuku Iho hui to hear traditions and oral evidence. Hearings began in March 2010 and ended in February 2015.

Volume 4 of Te Mana Whatu Ahuru addresses how the rapid alienation of Māori land reflected and fuelled an erosion of the ability of Te Rohe Pōtae Māori to exercise mana whakahaere, or self-government, over the way the district and its inhabitants were managed. An assurance that district leaders would be able to continue exercising mana whakahaere was contained within article 2 of the Treaty of Waitangi guarantee of tino rangatiratanga (self-government, autonomy), as well as the (1883–85) agreements between Te Rohe Pōtae Māori and the Crown, known as Te Ōhākī Tapu, that promised to give effect to the Treaty in the district.

Contrary to these promises, in the years after the Te Ōhākī Tapu agreements, the Crown’s actions, omissions, legislation, and policies designed to develop the area for Pākehā settlement largely stripped Te Rohe Pōtae Māori of their tribal authority. Areas affected included the governance and management of Māori communities, the impact of local government and public works legislation on remaining Māori land, and the management of the natural environment, including waterways.

The Tribunal found that the Crown failed to sustain Te Rohe Pōtae self-government in a Treaty-compliant way. While Te Rohe Pōtae Māori participated in a succession of representative structures and institutions expected to provide them with at least a form of mana whakahaere, these spheres of influence were limited, and many did not prove enduring.

The imposition of Pākehā local government structures further complicated Te Rohe Pōtae Māori’s struggle to retain mana whakahaere, and the Tribunal found that the Crown failed to ensure local government structures would adequately consider Te Rohe Pōtae rights to exercise their mana whakahaere and tino rangatiratanga.

Compulsory taking of Māori land for public works development purposes, which increased markedly after the Te Ōhākī Tapu agreements, was another means through which large tracks of Māori land were alienated, and Te Rohe Pōtae tribal authority diminished as a result. The Tribunal found that without meaningful consultation and without meeting tests of last resort, the Crown undertook the largest takings for public works in New Zealand history in the inquiry district during the twentieth century.

Crown and local authorities’ regulation of the natural environment, including waterways and water bodies, further diminished Te Rohe Pōtae Māori tribal authority over many taonga and sites of significance. Additionally, the Tribunal found Crown regulation and mismanagement of the natural environment likely resulted in significant damage to many of these important sites.

Based on its findings of Treaty breach in these areas, the Tribunal made recommendations to restore or better enable Te Rohe Pōtae Māori mana whakahaere, including by amending the legislative and policy frameworks associated with each area under review, and accounting for identified breaches in any Treaty settlement processes with claimants.