It is not government’s job to referee intra-iwi disputes over allocation of Treaty settlement assets the High Court ruled, ordering Alice Wairau end her occupation of land at Opoutama near Mahia peninsula which she claims should be handed over for use by her hapu Ngai Te Rakato.
A 2016 Treaty settlement with Maori having historical connections to Wairoa in northern Hawkes Bay has seen deep divisions between local Maori about future use of assets transferred as part of the $100 million settlement.
The settlement agreement names Tatau Tatau as the trust taking ownership of assets transferred in compensation. Within this Trust, seven different entities represent separate iwi interests as beneficiaries.
The High Court was told Te Rakato is a hapu forming part of one of these entities: Rongomaiwahine Iwi Trust.
For over a decade, members of Te Rakato have used a former school site at Opautama for community outreach programmes, paying rent under an informal lease.
They object to government transferring the school site to Tatau Tatau, in part-payment of the agreed $100 million Treaty settlement, without first acknowledging this land should come under Te Rakato control.
Tatau Tatau has agreed with government a $440,000 transfer value for the school site, refusing to settle until Ms Wairau and her supporters are removed. Their ongoing informal lease was cancelled by government in March 2025.
They claim deep ancestral links to the site.
Ms Wairau told the High Court Te Rakato suspect Tatau Tatau will use the site for commercial gain, preventing local hapu from continuing use of the land for community benefit.
Doing so would eradicate Te Rakato’s footprint and voice, she says.
She challenged government moves to eject her.
In the High Court, Justice Paulsen gave Ms Wairau seven days to vacate.
As current registered owner, government is entitled to possession of the land, he ruled.
Ms Wairau and her supporters have no legal right of occupation.
Any dispute Te Rakato may have with Tatau Tatau over future use of the school site must be dealt with through dispute resolution procedures in the Tatau and Rongomaiwahine trust deeds, he said.
Government is under no obligation to ‘actively protect’ Te Rakato’s claimed interest, he ruled.
Attorney-General v. Wairau – High Court (12.02.26)
26.078