The original Muriwhenua Land Inquiry inquired into 24 claims brought primarily by five Te Hiku (Far North) iwi: Te Rarawa, Ngāi Takoto, Te Aupouri, Ngāti Kurī and Ngāti Kahu. At that time, all the Te Hiku iwi were part of Te Rūnanga o Muriwhenua. The original Tribunal’s approach was to focus on the collective under the rūnanga rather than inquiring closely into the groups’ separate interests. The exception was Ngā hapū o Whangaroa, about whose claims the Tribunal made separate findings.

The original Muriwhenua Land Inquiry focused on the alienation of Māori land before 1865. Fifteen hearings were held from 1990 to 1994, and the Tribunal released the Muriwhenua Land Report in 1997. It found the claims of the Muriwhenua iwi were well-founded.

It was expected that the Tribunal’s report would give the Crown sufficient grasp of the extent of the Treaty breaches in that early period to proceed to settle the claims. In 1998, the Tribunal called for submissions on whether it should proceed to make remedy recommendations, whether it should continue with a Tribunal inquiry into the post-1865 aspects of parties’ claims, or whether the parties wished to enter negotiations with the Crown. Ultimately, the Muriwhenua claimants opted to pursue settlement negotiations with the Crown.  

The five Te Hiku iwi embarked on several years of engagement with the Crown to settle their claims. Sometimes they negotiated collectively and sometimes separately.

Four of the five Te Hiku iwi (Te Rarawa, Ngāi Takoto, Te Aupouri, and Ngāti Kurī), eventually arrived at settlements with the Crown that culminated in 2015 in the passage through Parliament of Settlement Acts for each iwi.  

Ngāti Kahu also entered settlement negotiations with the Crown, but in 2007 filed an application with the Waitangi Tribunal seeking a remedies stage of the inquiry into their claims. This application was then adjourned when Ngāti Kahu agreed to return to settlement negotiations with the Crown.

In 2011, Ngāti Kahu revived their remedies application. The Tribunal embarked on a remedies stage of the inquiry into their claims and in 2013 released The Ngāti Kahu Remedies Report.

In that report, the Tribunal found that redress for the wrongful dispossession of Ngāti Kahu lands before 1865 was long overdue. However, it found that the circumstances of wider Treaty settlement negotiations in the far north did not warrant the use of its binding powers. The report found that binding orders to return those properties to Ngāti Kahu would have upset the fine balance of existing agreements and impending Treaty settlements of other Te Hiku iwi.

In addition, the Tribunal found it was unable to recommend a total settlement package in the order of that sought by Ngāti Kahu, which was in excess of settlements already achieved up and down the country.

The Tribunal also found that, because Ngāti Kahu had suffered significant prejudice through Crown Treaty breaches, non-binding recommendations were warranted. The Tribunal recommended a package of redress including various forms of cultural redress, a commercial quantum, and the return of a series of properties of commercial and cultural value within their rohe.

The Tribunal recommended that the Crown should seek to re-engage with Ngāti Kahu and make an offer based on the range of redress proposed in the report.

Ngāti Kahu decided to challenge the Waitangi Tribunal’s approach to the remedies they sought. In 2015, they filed in the High Court an application for judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision not to make binding recommendations in favour of Ngāti Kahu.

In Flavell v Waitangi Tribunal [2015] NZHC 1907, the High Court found the Tribunal erred in law in two respects: for treating its resumption powers as effectively being remedies of last resort; and for not separately considering whether to return a part of the lands sought.

In Attorney-General v Haronga [2016] NZCA 626, the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s judgment and affirmed that section 8HB(1) of the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 obliged the Tribunal to make a recommendation if the prerequisites are met. The Tribunal was found to have erred by adopting the middle ground urging the parties to negotiate settlement of their differences themselves.

The Court of Appeal ordered the Tribunal to reconsider the application for remedies and make fresh decisions about what recommendations to make.

In 2017, following the judgment of the Court of Appeal, the Tribunal issued directions reconvening the remedies inquiry (see Wai 45, #2.558).

Later in 2017, after the original panel recused themselves, the Chairperson appointed Judge Wainwright as Presiding Officer of the Renewed Muriwhenua Land Tribunal (see Wai 45, #2.584).

In January 2018, the Renewed Muriwhenua Land Tribunal considered the effects of the judicial review proceedings and its capacity to rehear the application for remedies. The Tribunal found it was a new inquiry and not a continuation of the original Muriwhenua Land Tribunal. Accordingly, the Tribunal could not proceed immediately to a remedies inquiry, but it could rely on – and familiarise itself with – the findings of the original Muriwhenua Land Tribunal up to the point where Ngāti Kahu sought binding recommendations in 2007 (Wai 45, #2.641).

In April 2018, Ngāti Kahu challenged this decision in further judicial review proceedings in the High Court.

In April 2019, the High Court dismissed Ngāti Kahu’s application in Mutu v Chairperson of the Waitangi Tribunal [2019] NZHC 647.