The Government is planning to introduce legislation to remove the supervisory jurisdiction of the Māori Land Court over dozens of post-settlement governance entities (PSGEs), following a Supreme Court ruling that extended the Court’s oversight to those trusts.
Cabinet signed off the proposal last year, agreeing that any PSGE that requests it can be exempt from sections 237 to 245 of Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 – the provisions that give the Māori Land Court powers similar to the High Court over trusts
The move follows the 2024 Supreme Court decision in Nikora v Kruger, which found that Te Uru Taumatua, the Tūhoe settlement entity, was subject to the Court’s supervisory jurisdiction.
A cabinet paper shows 42 of the country’s 73 PSGEs have formally requested exemption from the Court’s oversight
Minister for Māori Crown Relations, Tama Potaka, responsible for the issue, says most entities do not want to remain under the Court’s supervision.
“Ko tā te nuinga o ngā PSGE’s kāore rātou i te paku hiahia kia riro mā ngā kaiwhakawā Māori o te Kōti Whenua Māori rātou e arotake, e ārahi rānei.”
He acknowledged some support for retaining oversight, but said most entities preferred to stand independently.
“Āe, he hiahia nō rātou mā ngā kaiwhakawā Māori o Te Kōti Whenua rātou e arotake, e arohae, e ārahi hoki, engari te nuinga kua whai whakaaro me te tū motuhake i waho atu o te Kōti Whenua Māori, ā, ka tika hoki tērā whakaaro.”
Potaka said disputes within iwi should not be left to the courts.
“Mā tātou mā ngā kairīpoata me ngā kaitōrangapū hoki rātou e akiaki kia tau te puehu i waho atu i ngā kōti. Hei aha ngā kōti e whakatau ēnei momo kōrero i te mea ērā kōrero me tū motuhake i roto i waenganui i ngā hapū me ngā whāruarua me ngā marae o te iwi.”
He said many PSGEs continue to operate diligently and with strong mandate.
“I actually think that there are a number of PSGEs that continue to maintain their responsibilities in a diligent and professional way and have considerable tautoko and support from their iwi members and from their uri whakaheke.
“But never assume that the PSGE alone is the iwi. The iwi is the iwi, and the PSGE is often a representative body that undertakes certain responsibilities for iwi.”
The standalone Bill is expected to list exempted PSGEs in a schedule and allow others to be added later by Order in Council with ministerial sign-off.
It will not apply retrospectively.
The Cabinet paper notes the Bill is considered “bespoke” and technical, dealing only with jurisdiction rather than wider governance reform
Te Kaunihera Kaumātua o Tūhoe, which brought the Supreme Court case, says the proposal would “deny Māori applicants access to justice” and remove independent judicial oversight.
Counsel for Te Kaunihera, Paul Harman, said the Bill effectively overrides the Supreme Court ruling and leaves most Māori with only the High Court as recourse, which he argues is too expensive.
“After six years of litigation, the proposed Bill also shows how far the Crown and perhaps the Tūhoe PSGE, Te Uru Taumatua, are prepared to go to override access to justice for my client,” he said.
“It weakens the rule of law when Governments make legislation in such haste.”
Harman says his client went to the Māori Land Court because Te Uru Taumatua had no meaningful dispute resolution process.
“In a nutshell, the proposed Bill will effectively remove independent judicial oversight and deny my client and other Māori due process and legal recourse,” he added.
Labour’s Willie Jackson says he is concerned about the direction of travel.
“I am very disappointed. I think this is a bit of a slap in the face in terms of hapū. You know there’s been a huge move there in terms of hapū rights, and I know there was a big vote by the different entities against the court ruling. But I don’t think that goes down too well. So there’s a lot of questions to ask, and I’ll be asking some questions over next week,” he said.
Asked whether the Māori Land Court should retain jurisdiction to help resolve disputes, Jackson said.
“Some of what they do is very good. But you don’t wanna be blocking what your people’s aspirations are, and hopes are in terms of where the settlement’s going and where the settlement’s gone wrong.”
Jackson added.
“Te ture nē, kei te hē tēnā whakaae mātou me te kōrero whakaaro a ētahi i tēnei wā. Mai rā anō i tino hōhā rātou ki te ārahi o te iwi nē, e maumahara te kōrero o te koroua Nikora, tana mahi rawe tana mahi i ngā wā o mua, kei te tino tautoko ngā whakaaro o ngā kaumātua o Tūhoe i tēnei wā.”
Cabinet formally confirmed the decision in June 2025, with legislation expected to be introduced this year.
“Work on potential legislation has been underway. There’s been a lot of discussions. There’s been a lot of engagement through what was then Te Arawhiti and now Te Tari Whakatau. That mahi is yet to be finalised, and a draft Bill is yet to be finalised, but it will come in due course and hopefully this side of the election.” Potaka said.
