Waitangi Tribunal – Te Rōpū Whakamana

Establishment of the Waitangi Tribunal, 1970s

The Waitangi Tribunal was established in 1975 against the backdrop of the protest movement of the 1970s and following decades of calls for the redress of Crown injustices against Māori. The tribunal’s original jurisdiction allowed it to focus only on contemporary issues, and its early inquiries were modest.

Growing protest

The tribunal was set up at a time of growing activism over the current and historical treatment of Māori in society. For more than a century Māori had tried to resolve grievances with the Crown through petitions, court cases and by other legal means, but without significant success.

A ‘Māori renaissance’ from the late 1960s was accompanied by calls for greater legal and social equality with non-Māori, the revival of Māori culture (including te reo Māori) and a halt to sales of remaining Māori land. At first many protesters denounced the treaty as a ‘fraud’, but later they called on the Crown to honour its obligations under the treaty. This protest movement culminated in the 1975 Māori land march to Parliament.

Matiu Rata (Ngāti Kurī, Te Aupōuri, Ngāti Whātua), the Labour government’s minister of Māori affairs, urged his cabinet colleagues to address Māori grievances by setting up a special tribunal. This would provide a legal process for investigating Māori claims of prejudice due to Crown breaches of the treaty and, it was hoped, help to resolve outstanding issues between Māori and Pākehā.

Tribunal established

Rata wanted the new Waitangi Tribunal to be able to hear historical claims. His colleagues rejected this proposal and the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 set up the Waitangi Tribunal with the power to investigate claimed breaches of the treaty from 10 October 1975, the date the act was passed. The act also made the tribunal the only official body with the authority to determine the meaning and effect of the treaty, taking into account both its English and Māori versions. The opposition National Party did not oppose the act, and one of its MPs commented that ‘the tribunal’s responsibilities appear minimal’.¹

First tribunal claim

The original Waitangi Tribunal comprised Chief Judge of the Māori Land Court Kenneth Gillanders-Scott, Graham Latimer (appointed by the minister of Māori affairs), and Lawrence Southwick (appointed by the minister of justice). The first claim heard by the tribunal was lodged by Joe Hawke and others of Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei and concerned fishery rights in the Waitematā Harbour.  The hearing was held in the ballroom of the Auckland Intercontinental Hotel, reflecting the monocultural beginnings of the tribunal. The tribunal rejected Hawke’s arguments. Its decision discouraged Māori from using the tribunal as an avenue for expressing their grievances. Land occupations at Bastion Point in 1977–78 and at Raglan in 1978 continued during this first phase of the tribunal.

For its first few years the Waitangi Tribunal made little impact on New Zealand life. It could only investigate present-day claims, yet most alienations of Māori land and other injustices had occurred much earlier, mainly in the 19th century. Further, while it could make recommendations to the government on how it might provide redress for treaty breaches associated with well-founded claims it had no power to enforce them. Many Māori therefore regarded the creation of the tribunal as a token gesture to appease the protest movement, a way of avoiding Māori demands.

Footnotes

• Quoted in Janine Hayward, ed., The Waitangi Tribunal: Te Rōpū Whakamana i te Tiriti o Waitangi. Wellington: Bridget Williams Books, 2004, p. 3. Back
• Andrew Sharp, Justice and the Maori. 2nd ed. Auckland: Oxford University Press, 1997, p. 74. Back
• W. H. Oliver, Claims to the Waitangi Tribunal. Wellington:Department of Justice, 1991, p. 10. Back

Developing the tribunal, 1980s

In the 1980s, the tribunal underwent significant change. It adopted a bicultural approach to its inquiries, and its jurisdiction was expanded to include historical claims back to 1840. The tribunal also issued a number of landmark reports that reflected its growing importance as an institution.

Bicultural process

In 1980 the original chair of the tribunal, Judge Gillanders-Scott, was replaced by Eddie Taihakurei Durie (Rangitāne, Ngāti Kauwhata, Ngāti Raukawa) and in 1982, one of the other original members, Lawrence Southwick, was replaced by lawyer Paul Temm. At that time only seven claims had been investigated and when Temm was first asked to join the tribunal, he had not heard of it. The tribunal began to hear more claims under a bicultural process that aimed, according to Temm, to ‘marry informality with fairness’.¹ Sittings were now held on the claimants’ marae and those who wished to give evidence in te reo Māori could do so, with translation facilities provided so all present could understand.

Investigating historical claims

In 1985, the fourth Labour government significantly extended the jurisdiction of the Waitangi Tribunal, which was given the power to investigate claims from the date of the signing of te Tiriti o Waitangi in 1840. The number of tribunal members was increased from three to seven (and then to 17 in 1988), with at least four to be of Māori ancestry. Another seven were appointed as deputy or alternate members. The tribunal gained research and administrative staff. It remained an advisory body, with no power to enforce its recommendations to the government.

Political leaders at the time believed that claims would be few in number and largely focused on land confiscation. They did not foresee the avalanche of claims from iwi and hapū groups across the country, or the range of Crown actions that Māori considered had breached the treaty.

Landmark claims and reports

In its early years, the tribunal reported on contemporary issues ranging from environmental concerns to the Māori language. From 1983 a series of landmark cases brought the tribunal to the forefront of public and political life.

Motunui (1983): The Taranaki synthetic fuel plant, which was partly Crown-owned, planned to discharge untreated sewage and industrial waste into the sea at Motunui, near Waitara. Local Te Āti Awa people had gathered shellfish from the affected area for generations and feared pollution of these traditional food sources. In 1983 the tribunal upheld their objections and recommended channelling the outfall to a sewage treatment plant. The government reluctantly accepted this recommendation.

Kaituna River (1984): Māori traditional fishing rights were again upheld in 1984. Claimants objected to a proposal to discharge treated sewage from Rotorua into an eel fishery in the Kaituna River. The scheme was stopped as a result of the tribunal’s findings.

Manukau (1985): The tribunal reported on a claim on behalf of the people of the Manukau Harbour. It concerned pollution of seafood resources and loss of surrounding land from confiscations after the New Zealand wars and for public works. The tribunal’s findings helped bring about the Resource Management Act 1991, which made statutory allowance for Māori environmental concerns. Two local iwi were named as consultant guardians of Manukau Harbour.

Te Reo Māori (1986): The tribunal’s report recommended that te reo Māori should become an official language of New Zealand, and that a newly created body should supervise and foster its use and preservation. These recommendations resulted in the Māori Language Act 1987 (which made Māori an official language), the establishment of Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Māori (the Māori Language Commission), and increased Māori-language broadcasting.

Ōrākei (1987): In response to what was effectively a sequel to Joe Hawke’s 1977 claim on fisheries regulation, the tribunal explored the historical aspects of the Ōrākei claim and found in favour of the claimants. It recommended that land, including Takaparawhau Bastion Point, should be returned to Ngāti Whātua in tribal ownership, and that Takaparawhau Bastion Point should remain public open space administered jointly by Ngāti Whātua and Auckland City Council. It also recommended an award of $3 million to Ngāti Whātua – the first cash payment recommended as part of a treaty settlement. The government accepted all the tribunal’s recommendations.

Footnotes

• Paul Temm, The Waitangi Tribunal – the conscience of the nation. Tāmaki-makau-rau: Random Century, 1990, wh. 11. Back

Tribunal changes, 1988–1999

From the late 1980s the Waitangi Tribunal grew to become one of the country’s most prominent public institutions. With a higher profile came greater public scrutiny and an increased workload.

Treaty of Waitangi (State Enterprises) Act 1988

The Waitangi Tribunal’s powers and resources were further extended in response to the State-owned Enterprises Act 1986. That act raised the possibility that Crown land subject to treaty claims could pass out of Crown ownership and therefore become unavailable for treaty settlements.

In 1987 the New Zealand Māori Council took a case to the Court of Appeal challenging the act. In a landmark decision in what became known as the Lands case, the court ruled in favour of the council. It characterised the treaty relationship as a partnership and identified a set of underlying treaty principles that the government needed to consider before transferring assets to state-owned enterprises. This decision would go on to inform later judgements and Waitangi Tribunal findings.

The Court of Appeal’s finding resulted in the Treaty of Waitangi (State Enterprises) Act 1988. Under this act, the tribunal could make binding recommendations and direct the government to transfer certain state-owned-enterprise assets to iwi as part of claim settlements. The act also provided the tribunal with a director, Wira Gardiner (Ngāti Awa, Ngāti Pikiao, Whakatōhea and Te Whānau-ā-Apanui) being the first. The Waitangi Tribunal had become a prominent public institution.

Criticism of the tribunal

The high public profile of the tribunal and its work generated a backlash. Some people felt that historic grievances were best forgotten. The tribunal’s work was said to be diverting attention from the real problems of Māori. The National Party’s spokesperson on Māori affairs, Winston Peters (Ngāti Wai), said it should be downgraded to a research unit that would report to government on the historical facts. Peters also warned that the growing powers of the tribunal were overriding constitutional norms. In the late 1980s the tribunal’s chair, Judge Eddie Durie (Rangitāne, Ngāti Kauwhata, Ngāti Raukawa), received so many abusive telephone calls that he made his number confidential.

Māori claimants were concerned about the time that it took to resolve claims, and that the investigation into a claim could favour those taking part and overlook the rights and claims of other iwi and hapū in the area. Often tribunal investigations pitted one iwi or hapū or group against others and had the potential to create divisions among and between different claimant groups.

Fiscal envelope

Many critics of the tribunal were especially concerned about the possible cost of settling treaty claims. Some thought the eventual cost of these settlements might cripple the economy. In 1994 the government introduced a new policy on claims settlement known as the ‘fiscal envelope’. This proposed that claims would be settled without the transfer of state-owned natural resources or land forming part of the conservation estate, and set a maximum sum of $1 billion to cover all past and future historical treaty claims. The fiscal envelope was strongly opposed by Māori nationally on the grounds of inadequate consultation and denial of natural justice, and it was dropped.

Claim backlog

By 1993 there was a backlog of several hundred claims waiting to be heard. Even supporters of the Waitangi Tribunal acknowledged that it was falling seriously behind in its work. With the aim of streamlining research into these claims, the tribunal undertook the Rangahaua Whanui (researching broadly) project, a series of general research reports on the main historical treaty grievances in each district, and on nationally important issues. However, this project did not significantly reduce the tribunal’s workload. In 1995 its director, Buddy Mikaere (Ngāti Pūkenga, Ngāi Te Rangi), resigned, expressing frustration at the lack of resources available to him and his staff.

District inquiries

In 1996 the tribunal launched a new system for hearing claims. All the claims in a district were researched together and the research was compiled into a casebook. The combined claims were then heard by a tribunal panel which released its findings in a single large report covering that district. The first tribunal inquiry under this system was for the Mōhaka ki Ahuriri district in Hawke’s Bay.

Direct negotiation

The tribunal is not responsible for settling claims between Māori and the Crown, only for investigating whether the claims have merit. To advance the negotiation of treaty settlements, in 1989 the government set up a policy unit within the Department of Justice to examine treaty settlement issues. In 1995 this became the Office of Treaty Settlements. Claimants could choose to either have their claims heard in full by the Waitangi Tribunal before negotiating with the Crown or proceed directly to negotiation and settlement.

The Office of Treaty Settlements was replaced by a new agency, Te Arawhiti, the Office of Māori Crown Relations, in 2018. This brought together public servants working on treaty settlements with those responsible for ensuring that commitments made by the Crown to Māori were upheld for the first time.

Landmark claims and reports

Muriwhenua Fishing (1988): The claim by the iwi of the Muriwhenua region in the Far North included their traditional fishing rights. Before it was fully heard, the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries began issuing commercial fishing quotas. An urgent Waitangi Tribunal hearing determined that this process was contrary to the principles of the treaty and that the Crown should negotiate with the Muriwhenua tribes before issuing further quotas. Subsequent High Court action halted quota allocation throughout the country.

Ngāi Tahu (1991): The Ngāi Tahu treaty claims addressed land transactions between 1844 and 1864 that resulted in the iwi losing most of its South Island land. The tribunal released a report in 1991 recommending substantial compensation. In 1998 Ngāi Tahu agreed to compensation valued at $170 million, including ownership of pounamu , rights to sites of significance including Aoraki/Mt Cook, a role in managing conservation estate resources and restoration of some original place names.

Fisheries Settlement (1992): This report led to a settlement – known as the ‘Sealord’ deal – that gave iwi throughout New Zealand assets equivalent to 20% of total commercial fishing rights, as well as 50% of seafood company Sealord Fisheries, further shares in fishing companies and $18 million. This was the first treaty settlement to affect all iwi.

Taranaki (1996): This report set out the historical background to the claims of Taranaki Māori and outlined the massive land loss they had suffered. It was the first to examine in detail the raupatu that took place following the New Zealand wars. The tribunal estimated the total area of land wrongfully taken through confiscation and other means at nearly 2 million acres. It also investigated events at Parihaka, stating that the invasion and sacking ‘must rank with the most heinous action of any government, in any country, in the last century.’¹ The report was also significant for its commentary on indigenous autonomy, with the tribunal considering that the prosperity of Parihaka was proof that Māori self-government was beneficial for both Māori and the country.

Whanganui River (1999): This report found that Te Ātihaunui-a-Pāpārangi had possessed and controlled the river and its tributaries for hundreds of years and had never knowingly or willingly relinquished their treaty rights over it. The report recommended that the authority and ownership rights of Te Ātihaunui-a-Pāpārangi in the river should be recognised in legislation. In 2017 the river was granted the same status as a legal person. Similar arrangements were subsequently made for Te Urewera and Taranaki maunga as part of redress for treaty breaches.

Footnotes

• Waitangi Tribunal, The Taranaki Report: kaupapa tuatahi. Wellington: Legislation Direct, 1996, p. 309. Back

New approaches in the 21st century

The 21st century saw a shift in the way the tribunal worked. As it made progress towards completing the district inquiries, it turned its attention to kaupapa (thematic) and contemporary claims. Alongside the changing work programme came changes in how inquiries were conducted.

New approach

In 2000, the 25th anniversary of the Waitangi Tribunal, its new chair, Judge Joe Williams (Ngāti Pūkenga, Te Arawa), introduced a ‘New Approach’ to further reduce the time taken to hear claims. Whether any claimants’ issues were accepted by the Crown was clarified in advance, so hearings could focus on matters on which the parties disagreed. The primary purpose of the tribunal’s work was ‘to get the claimants, and the Crown, from grievance to settlement as quickly and fairly as possible’, said Williams.¹ The first New Approach inquiry was in the Tūranganui-a-Kiwa (Gisborne) district. The report of this inquiry was released in 2004.

End of historical claims

In 2006 the Labour government passed the Treaty of Waitangi Amendment Act, which set a deadline for making historical claims (defined as issues which occurred before 21 September 1992) to the tribunal. From 2 September 2008 the tribunal could only register new claims that raised contemporary issues.

This change angered many Māori and led to a flood of claims. More than 1,800 claims were lodged with the tribunal in the four weeks leading up to the deadline, eclipsing the almost 1,500 claims registered over the previous three decades of the tribunal’s existence.

Kaupapa inquiries

Much of the tribunal’s work in its early decades focused on hearing and reporting on historical claims in the district inquiries. This created a backlog of other claims waiting to be heard, many of them contemporary. As the tribunal came closer to completing the remaining district inquiries, its attention shifted to these other claims.

Among them were claims which raised nationally significant issues affecting all Māori in similar ways. These claims were grouped along thematic lines as part of the tribunal’s Kaupapa (thematic) inquiry programme, which began in 2015. The 13 inquiries making up the programme in 2025 covered a wide range of topics, including health, housing, education, military veterans, national resources and environmental management, and the justice system.

A tikanga-centred process

In 2010, the tribunal introduced ngā kōrero tuku iho hui for the Te Rohe Pōtae/King Country district inquiry. These hui provided claimants the opportunity to present their oral traditions about tribal identity, relationships with the land, historical events and the tikanga behind them to the tribunal. Ngā kōrero tuku iho hui were subsequently adopted in other district inquiries.

Kaupapa inquiries have made further innovations to assist the tribunal in hearing and reporting on claims. Wānanga are used to bring the parties to the claim together to clarify their respective tikanga and agree on what tikanga and other principles should underpin an inquiry. Tūāpapa hearings were used at the start of the Mana Wāhine kaupapa inquiry to gain knowledge of relevant tikanga and pre-colonial understandings of wāhine Māori, against which Crown breaches of the treaty could be examined. Several kaupapa inquiries have also commissioned pou in law and tikanga to help the tribunal understand how to run a tikanga-aligned inquiry process.

These innovations marked a shift in the tribunal’s approach to inquiries to one that better aligned with tikanga principles. They sought to make the tribunal process less formal and legalistic and to introduce elements akin to those seen on marae. This was a further step along the path taken when the tribunal first adopted a bicultural process in the 1980s.

Changing perceptions of the tribunal

The tribunal continued to attract significant public debate about its role and work in the 21st century. In the early 2000s historians debated the tribunal’s approach to historical practice. Some – notably Bill Oliver – argued that the history produced by the tribunal was presentist, applying standards of the present when determining whether past Crown actions had breached the treaty.

Although many saw the benefit of reporting on historical claims and the need to provide redress for treaty breaches, the slow progress in hearing and reporting on such claims continued to be a source of frustration. Some on the political right argued that the tribunal claims process had created a ‘gravy train’ for lawyers and a select Māori elite, enriching them while failing to provide any real redress for Māori. National Party leader Don Brash complained in his controversial 2004 ‘Ōrewa’ speech about a growing treaty ‘grievance industry’ and called for the tribunal to be wound up once historical claims were settled.

Others thought the tribunal was growing progressively more radical in its findings and recommendations, as well as stepping beyond its remit, especially as its attention shifted from historical inquiries to contemporary claims. Still others thought it wasn’t making good use of its limited powers or going far enough in its recommendations, a continuation of criticisms from its early years that the tribunal was a ‘toothless taniwha’. Academic Margaret Mutu commented that the evidence of treaty breaches in its reports gave the tribunal the appearance of being on the side of Māori, but that despite this evidence being irrefutable, the tribunal still tended to err on the side of the Crown.

Such commentary reflected a balancing act on the part of the tribunal as it sought to recommend suitable redress for treaty breaches without drawing negative attention from politicians and the public. Since 1988, when the tribunal gained binding powers to recommend the return of certain types of land to claimants, government ministers have periodically threatened to reduce the powers of the tribunal or even abolish it.

Landmark claims and reports

Foreshore and Seabed policy (2004): In early 2004, the tribunal held an urgent inquiry into a highly controversial policy proposal by the Labour government to vest ownership of the foreshore and seabed in the Crown. The policy was developed after the Court of Appeal ruled that the Māori Land Court had jurisdiction to determine whether Māori had customary rights to the foreshore and seabed. Despite the tribunal finding that the policy breached the treaty and recommending that the government engage with Māori to negotiate a solution, legislation granting the Crown ownership over the foreshore and seabed came into force later that year, prompting the formation of the Māori Party (later Te Pāti Māori).

Wai 262 (2011): Known informally as the ‘flora and fauna’ or ‘intellectual property’ claim, the Wai 262 claim was originally lodged in 1991 by six claimants on behalf of their respective iwi. The tribunal commenced hearings in 1997 and released a final report, Ko Aotearoa tēnei, in 2011. This was the tribunal’s first whole-of-government inquiry and, in essence, examined the issue of who controls mātauranga Māori. Significantly, the tribunal concluded that the treaty envisaged a partnership between Māori and the Crown, wherein the Crown was entitled to govern but Māori would retain tino rangatiranga over their taonga, and recommended a raft of changes to laws, policies and practices to reflect this.

Te Paparahi o te Raki stage one (2014): The first part of the tribunal’s report into claims in Northland was unique in that it examined events leading up to 1840, specifically the meaning and effect of the treaty. Claimants maintained that their tūpuna (tīpuna) had never ceded sovereignty when they signed the treaty. The tribunal agreed, concluding that the rangatira who signed the treaty instead entered into a power-sharing agreement, in which rangatira would retain full authority over their own people and affairs while the Crown would exercise authority over British settlers.

Hauora (2019): As part of the Health Services and Outcomes kaupapa inquiry, the tribunal released the Hauora report, which examined claims that the legislative and policy framework of the primary healthcare system had failed to achieve Māori health equity. One of the report’s recommendations led to the establishment in 2022 of Te Aka Whai Ora, the Māori Health Authority, a standalone entity tasked with ensuring the health system met the needs of Māori. The short-lived authority was disestablished in 2024 by the new National-led government.

Mangatū remedies (2021): Following an urgent inquiry, the tribunal exercised its rarely used binding powers to require the return of land making up the Mangatū State Forest to Māori ownership. The recommendation followed the release of the tribunal’s 2004 report into historical claims over the Tūranganui-a-Kiwa (Poverty Bay) district. In that report, the tribunal found that the Crown had breached the treaty when acquiring land that became part of the Mangatū State Forest from its Māori owners in 1961. It did not make any specific recommendations for redress in that report. A series of judicial reviews ultimately compelled the tribunal to make a definitive decision about issuing binding recommendations

Footnotes

• Joe V. Williams, ‘Improving the process’. Te Manutukutuku, May/June 2001, p. 2.

Researching Waitangi Tribunal claims

Who can submit a claim?

Any Māori person can submit a claim to the Waitangi Tribunal. They can be an individual, or represent a group, hapū or iwi. A claim must allege that a particular law, policy, action or inaction by the Crown breached the Treaty of Waitangi, and that Māori have suffered prejudice (harmful effects) as a result.

Claimants usually employ lawyers to help prepare their claims and present evidence, and often qualify for legal aid to meet those costs.

Researching a claim

Once a claim was accepted by the Waitangi Tribunal, tribunal staff decided what research would be necessary to fully investigate it. That research was likely to include the traditional history of the claimants’ iwi, hapū or whānau (and in district inquiries, their tribal rohe ), and surviving oral traditions about the impact of Crown actions and their prejudicial effects on claimants. Research was carried out by the tribunal itself and by the claimants. Some claimants could apply to fund their research through the Crown Forestry Rental Trust (which collected fees from Crown-licensed forestry land which might be returned to claimants). The Crown also commissioned research into claims.

Written and oral evidence

The resulting research was part of a wide range of evidential material, including claimant briefs (statements of evidence), archival material, and technical reports written by professional historians. The latter were publicly available, often of great historical value and in some cases published as books. However, the tribunal also welcomed evidence in the form of eyewitness accounts of historical events, visual demonstrations of places and their significance, kōrero tuku iho , and mōteatea and waiata. At times the Crown also delivered some of its evidence in oral form, for example through the testimony of former and current public servants.

Research casebook

Since 1996 the full body of research prepared for a particular inquiry has been incorporated into a casebook that formed the basis of the evidence for the tribunal’s hearings into those claims. The casebooks from tribunal inquiries over many years amount to a comprehensive study of land loss or alienation and other forms of Pākehā–Māori interaction since 1840. It is likely that no comparable country has so fully researched its colonial history as has New Zealand through the tribunal inquiry process.

Hearing and reporting on claims

Tribunal members

The Waitangi Tribunal comprises up to 20 members, plus a chairperson. Tribunal members are appointed by the governor-general on the recommendation of the minister of Māori development, in consultation with the minister of justice. Their professions and backgrounds are often in law, history, tikanga Māori, anthropology, business or community development. About half the members are Māori and half are Pākehā.

Each inquiry is heard by a panel, made up of three to seven members, always with at least one Māori member. Judges of the Māori Land Court are usually appointed as presiding officer for a tribunal panel.

The chairs of the tribunal have been Eddie Durie (Rangitāne, Ngāti Kauwhata, Ngāti Raukawa), Joe Williams (Ngāti Pūkenga, Te Arawa), Wilson Isaac (Ngāti Porou, Tūhoe, Ngāti Kahungunu) and Caren Fox (Ngāti Porou).

Tribunal’s roles

The tribunal’s roles include inquiring into and making recommendations on Treaty of Waitangi claims, and making recommendations or determinations on Crown forest land, railways land, state-owned-enterprise land and land transferred to educational institutions.

Waitangi Tribunal Unit

The staff working for the tribunal carry out the administration of the claims and the hearings, support claimants and other inquiry participants through the tribunal’s processes, and help them prepare for events such as hearings. They also carry out research on the claims where needed and assist the tribunal members to draft reports.

Types of tribunal inquiry

Claims accepted by the tribunal are grouped into categories:

• District inquiries group together and investigate claims (mostly historical) brought by Māori within a particular geographical area.
• Kaupapa (thematic) inquiries are not specific to a particular geographical district and often deal with matters of national significance that affect Māori as a whole.
• Urgent inquiries are only held under exceptional circumstances, when claimants can demonstrate significant and irreversible prejudice as a result of current or pending Crown actions or policies.
• Remedies inquiries are held when the tribunal has already found a claim to be ‘well- founded’ (based on good evidence) but has not made any specific recommendations for how the Crown can remedy the prejudice arising from the treaty breach. They typically occur following the release of a report on a historical inquiry after a claimant applies to the tribunal for specific remedies, such as binding recommendations for the return of Crown assets.

Hearings

Hearings allow the tribunal to hear evidence from claimants and other interested parties, including the Crown. They follow the protocol of claimant groups and can be held on marae or at other venues such as town halls, conference centres, hotels or the tribunal’s own offices. Hearings are usually open to the public. It can take anywhere from a day or two to several weeks to hear all the evidence for an inquiry, which can be presented in te reo Māori or English, orally or in writing. The tribunal panel may also visit sites of significance to the claimants, such as pā sites or wāhi tapu, as part of hearings. 

Tribunal reports

After hearing all the evidence on a claim, the tribunal panel decides whether, on the balance of probabilities, the claim is well-founded. It produces a written report summarising its findings and, if it considers the claim well-founded, recommends ways the Crown could compensate the claimants, remove the prejudice or prevent similar prejudice happening in the future. This report can then become the basis for negotiations between a claimant group and the Crown - although the Crown is not obligated to accept the tribunal’s findings. 

By 2023 the tribunal had produced more than 150 reports, ranging from one-page statements to multi-volume reports on district inquiries involving many separate claims. These were supplied to relevant ministers of the Crown and the claimants, and published in hard copy and on the Waitangi Tribunal website.

Towards reconciliation

Celebrating the 40th anniversary of the Waitangi Tribunal, Māori leader and academic Hirini Moko Mead commented that the tribunal,

has produced a host of reports that, taken together, provide a rich source of historical information in relation to the colonisation of New Zealand, the meeting of cultures and the struggle of Māori to survive in the face of the colonial machinery that rolled over them. These reports also add significantly to our knowledge regarding legal and constitutional matters. … [T]he work of the Tribunal has made an honest endeavour to bring about reconciliation between the two parties of the Treaty of Waitangi … There is no doubt that the work and achievements of the Waitangi Tribunal deserve the gratitude of the nation for what it has accomplished.¹

Footnotes

• Hirini Moko Mead, ‘The Waitangi Tribunal: an interesting journey’, Te Manutukutuku, January 2016, issue 69, p. 19. Back