logo
Inside the Waitangi Tribunal's Mana Wāhine hearings

Inside the Waitangi Tribunal's Mana Wāhine hearings

The Spinoff09-06-2025
The Waitangi Tribunal's latest hearings delved into the historical and systemic marginalisation of Māori women – and the constitutional future their voices demand.
As the cold embrace of Hine Takurua set upon Te Upoko-o-te-ika-a-Māui, the wharenui at Te Herenga Waka Marae was warmed by the testimony, challenge and reassertion for the Mana Wāhine claim. Last week, the Waitangi Tribunal held hearings for the Mana Wāhine Kaupapa Inquiry: a landmark claim addressing the Crown's ongoing failure to uphold the status, rights, and constitutional authority of wāhine Māori.
Heard before judge Sarah Reeves and panel members Robyn Anderson, Kim Ngarimu, Linda Tuhiwai Smith and Ruakere Hond, the Mana Wāhine inquiry centres on the enduring impacts of colonisation, patriarchy and the Crown's exclusionary systems of power. From the appointment processes of state boards to the structure of commercial fisheries, the claim argues that wāhine Māori have been deliberately sidelined from decision-making, leadership and economic participation.
Claimant representative Natalie Coates opened with a challenge to look inward as well as out: 'Acknowledging that the patriarchal ideas infiltrated our tikanga and how we conduct and order ourselves in our whānau, hapū and iwi is a necessary part of our healing journey as a people.' It was a confronting reminder that while colonisation imposed new systems, some damage manifested through the reshaping of tikanga.
Legal academic Ani Mikaere was the first witness, opening proceedings with a clear articulation of what has been lost: 'Our creation stories and tikanga once upheld the mana of wāhine Māori, recognising them as leaders, protectors of whakapapa, powerful spiritual figures. Colonisation has rewritten those stories, often with misogyny, fear and racism layered over our own truths.'
Across four days of presentations and cross-examination, a diverse group of lawyers, historians, researchers, kuia and claimants took the stand. The hearings wove together a narrative that was both historic and current, doctrinal and lived.
The claim traces its lineage to one woman in particular – Mira Szászy. As the sole wahine commissioner on the Māori Fisheries Commission in 1990, her exclusion from subsequent appointments was a catalyst for Wai 381. Several witnesses described her as having 'grandparented' both the fisheries settlement and the Mana Wāhine claim. Ripeka Evans, an original claimant, told the tribunal: 'The opportunities for wāhine Māori weren't lost. They simply weren't presented.'
Much of the testimony outlined how the Crown's systems are structurally incapable of recognising mana wāhine on their own terms. Tribunal veteran and claimant representative Annette Sykes framed the inquiry as 'a constitutional moment'. 'This is the first time the tribunal has been called to confront the Crown's breaches through the distinct and intersectional lens of wāhine Māori.'
That lens includes land and resource alienation, gendered violence, the denial of political agency and systemic exclusion. According to historian Aroha Harris, the doctrine of discovery and the English common law model erased not just indigenous rights, but indigenous women. Tina Ngata highlighted the stark link between the two: 'The doctrine of discovery replaced our systems of sacredness with a hierarchy. The more white, and the more male you were, the more sacred. The further you were from that, the more disposable.'
That disposability has consequences. Deputy dean for the faculty of business and economics at the University of Auckland Carla Houkamau presented research highlighting how contemporary state systems continue to harm Māori women, particularly in education, health and criminal justice. 'Our pain is more likely to be ignored. Our leadership is more likely to be invisible. Our participation, purposefully hidden.'
But the hearings showed that wāhine Māori are not just participating – they are leading in the way. The final day was dedicated to testimony from the Māori Women's Welfare League, led by current president Hope Tupara. The league, with its ECOSOC status at the UN and more than 70 years of intergenerational organising, emerged as a central vehicle for mana wāhine. Former president Areta Koopu described the league as a whare: 'We are one family, one house. We stick together.'
That unity was tested over decades of Crown interface. Tupara told the tribunal: 'They don't value our mātauranga. The Crown doesn't understand our way of thinking, because it doesn't operate that way.' Several former presidents outlined how Crown processes had repeatedly sidelined the league from major policy decisions. One spoke of the 'opportunity cost' of the Crown's insistence on engagement with newer pan-Māori bodies: 'Despite our leadership in communities, we were increasingly outside the consultation room.'
A core focus of the next steps is remedies. Many witnesses called for changes to appointment structures, constitutional recognition of mana wāhine, and support for pathways rooted in whakapapa rather than CVs. Indigenous rights lawyer Dayle Takitimu urged the tribunal to consider the fundamental shift needed: 'Wāhine Māori have inherent mana and authority embedded into us. The Crown must confront the ways it has polluted or denied that truth – not just in history, but in policy today.'
Barrister Natalie Coates reinforced that any future framework must move beyond individual fixes: 'We're talking about the wellbeing of wāhine Māori being inseparable from the communities from which we come from… It's not a zero sum struggle, it's a return to collective health and justice.'
The claimants were also clear that this was not about slotting women into existing colonial frameworks. Rather, as Mikaere said, it is about restoring a reality that existed long before colonisation – one where mana was understood as shared, relational and grounded in whakapapa. 'It is only when women achieve mana recognition that the Māori people will rise up,' she said.
Last week marked the first round of hearings in a long process. However, for many present at Te Herenga Waka, it was also a reclamation. In the words of former Māori Women's Welfare League president Druis Barrett: 'We were always doing the mahi. The question is when the Crown will finally see it.'
The Wai 2700 hearings will continue later this year.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Supreme Court gives green light to riverbeds' inclusion in Māori customary marine title orders
Supreme Court gives green light to riverbeds' inclusion in Māori customary marine title orders

Scoop

timea day ago

  • Scoop

Supreme Court gives green light to riverbeds' inclusion in Māori customary marine title orders

The Supreme Court has found riverbeds can be included in Māori customary marine title orders, if other legal tests are met. That comes from the second part of the Court's judgement on claims to customary rights in the harbours, river mouths, beaches and seascape of the eastern Bay of Plenty. The first judgement released in December 2024 addressed the meaning of section 58 of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 (MACA), which sets out the test Māori groups must meet to have their customary rights recognised. It also overturned a previous Court of Appeal decision in 2023 which made it easier to gain customary title. This second judgement resolves the remaining seven issues on the seven separate appeals which were heard together. All this as the government forges ahead with plans to amend the law in question over fears that the 2023 Court of Appeal decision could have made it significantly easier for Māori iwi, hapū and whānau to have their customary rights over parts of the coastline recognised. Navigable rivers In this case one of the orders for customary title included the confluence of the Waiōweka and Ōtara rivers near Opōtiki. "Navigable river" in this case means a river of sufficient width and depth (whether at all times so or not) to be used for the purpose of navigation by boats, barges, punts, or rafts. The court accepted that the relevant portion of the rivers in question is navigable. The definition of "marine and coastal area" in MACA includes the beds of rivers that are part of the coastal marine area as that term is defined in the Resource Management Act 1991. The Attorney-General submitted that previous Acts of Parliament were intended to "vest the full beneficial ownership - akin to freehold title - in navigable riverbeds in the Crown." The court found that previous Acts were not sufficiently clear to extinguish customary rights or title to the beds of navigable rivers. The court concluded that "the beds of navigable rivers form part of the common marine and coastal area as defined in MACA, and recognition orders may extend to them". The court found the impact of these findings on the CMT claims in the Eastern Bay of Plenty, particularly in relation to the confluence of the Waiōweka and Ōtara rivers, can be dealt with by the High Court. Timeline October 2023, just days after the 2023 General Election, a Court of Appeal decision made granting customary marine title easier In November 2023, the coalition agreement between National and NZ First includes a commitment to overturn the Court of Appeal decision September 2024, the Waitangi Tribunal recommends the Crown halt its efforts to amend the Takutai Moana Act That same month the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) (Customary Marine Title) Amendment Bill is introduced to Parliament December 2024, the first Supreme Court judgement overturns the Court of Appeal decision. The government hits pause on the amendment bill August 2025, the government presses ahead with the law change.

Cabinet minister Goldsmith involved in Seymour's UN letter controversy
Cabinet minister Goldsmith involved in Seymour's UN letter controversy

NZ Herald

timea day ago

  • NZ Herald

Cabinet minister Goldsmith involved in Seymour's UN letter controversy

On July 1, two days before the letter went to the UN, one of Seymour's advisers sent a draft to Goldsmith's office. 'Attached is the Minister for Regulation's proposed response... He mentioned that we had agreed to run it past your minister before we sent it off,' the email read. Act leader David Seymour sent a blunt letter to the UN after consulting Paul Goldsmith. Photo / Mark Mitchell 'It is a little more direct than what MFAT [Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade] might draft. Please let me know if your minister is happy.' Goldsmith's office responded the next day, asking for a phone call. By the morning of July 3, Seymour's adviser emailed him: 'Goldie is happy for us to send it. He is going to send his own mild MFAT holding letter on behalf of himself and [Māori Development Minister Tama] Potaka.' Seymour replied: 'Okay, great.' His letter was sent to the UN that afternoon. In a statement provided to RNZ on Saturday, Goldsmith said: 'When asked, I did not object to [Seymour] sending the letter, but when commenting on UN matters, it is the Foreign Minister's views that are relevant, not mine.' A spokesperson for Seymour said he had nothing further to add. Emails between Seymour's staff in June canvassed the options for responding to the UN and noted MFAT's preferred approach was a joint reply from 'relevant ministers' Seymour, Goldsmith and Potaka, in line with previous UN communications in 2024. Instead, Peters ultimately issued a Government-wide letter on August 11, striking a softer tone and expressing regret for the 'breakdown in protocol'. The UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous Peoples, Albert K. Barume, had raised concerns on June 12 about Seymour's Regulatory Standards Bill, suggesting it failed to recognise Māori traditions or uphold Treaty principles. Seymour's reply branded the critique 'presumptive, condescending and wholly misplaced' and 'an affront to New Zealand's sovereignty'. After news of Seymour's letter broke in July, Luxon told media he agreed with its content but Seymour was wrong to have sent it: 'I expect Winston Peters to be the person that engages with the UN'. – RNZ

Another Cabinet minister caught up in UN letter saga
Another Cabinet minister caught up in UN letter saga

Otago Daily Times

timea day ago

  • Otago Daily Times

Another Cabinet minister caught up in UN letter saga

By Craig McCulloch of RNZ Another Cabinet minister has been caught up in the United Nations letter-writing imbroglio, with new documents showing David Seymour first ran his response past Paul Goldsmith before he sent it. Seymour, writing as Regulations Minister, fired off a blunt reply to the UN in July that prompted public rebukes from both Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Foreign Minister Winston Peters for bypassing proper processes. Seymour refused to concede any mistake but agreed to formally withdraw his letter so Peters could issue one on behalf of the full government. New correspondence, released to RNZ under the Official Information Act, reveals Goldsmith, the Treaty Negotiations Minister, had been looped in early on and appeared comfortable with Seymour's approach. On 1 July, two days before the letter went to the UN, one of Seymour's advisors sent a draft to Goldsmith's office. "Attached is the Minister for Regulation's proposed response... He mentioned that we had agreed to run it past your Minister before we sent it off," the email read. "It is a little more direct than what MFAT might draft. Please let me know if your Minister is happy." Goldsmith's office responded the next day, asking for a phone call. By the morning of 3 July, Seymour's advisor emailed him: "Goldie is happy for us to send it. He is going to send his own mild MFAT holding letter on behalf of himself and [Māori Development Minister Tama] Potaka." Seymour replied: "Ok, great." His letter was sent to the UN that afternoon. In a statement provided to RNZ on Saturday, Goldsmith said: "When asked, I did not object to [Seymour] sending the letter, but when commenting on UN matters, it is the Foreign Minister's views that are relevant, not mine." A spokesperson for Seymour said he had nothing further to add. Earlier correspondence in late June showed Goldsmith's office drafted an initial "holding response" to the UN but requested it be sent with Seymour's letterhead as "the senior Minister for this response". Emails between Seymour's staff also canvassed the options for responding to the UN. It noted MFAT's preferred approach would be a joint reply from "relevant Ministers" Seymour, Goldsmith and Potaka, in line with previous UN communications in 2024. Instead, Peters ultimately issued a government-wide letter on 11 August, striking a softer tone and expressing regret for the "breakdown in protocol". The UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous Peoples, Albert K Barume, had raised concerns on 12 June about Seymour's Regulatory Standards Bill, suggesting it failed to recognise Māori traditions or uphold Treaty principles. Seymour's reply branded the critique "presumptive, condescending and wholly misplaced" and "an affront to New Zealand's sovereignty". After news of Seymour's letter broke in July, Luxon told media he agreed with its content but Seymour was wrong to have sent it: "I expect Winston Peters to be the person that engages with the UN."

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store