A Supreme Court decision has given the Māori Land Court arguably unexpected supervisory powers over the governance bodies established through Treaty settlements. The Government wants to reverse this through law reform, arguably restoring iwi autonomy, but removing a relatively accessible, culturally grounded option for beneficiaries when internal disputes arise. In this article we discuss what this means for iwi.

The Government is proposing law reform to change how disputes are handled for Post‑Settlement Governance Entities (PSGEs) - the entities that have been established because of settled Treaty Settlement claims, following the Supreme Court’s landmark Nikora v Kruger decision.

The Supreme Court confirmed that PSGEs holding "general land owned by Māori" and "constituted in respect of" that land fall under the supervisory jurisdiction of the Māori Land Court (MLC). This affects PSGEs established under the 73 settled treaty claims and introduces a level of oversight neither the Crown nor iwi anticipated during settlement negotiations.

The Government now wants to legislate PSGEs out of the supervisory reach of the MLC, leaving disputes to be resolved internally or, if escalated, through the general courts.

The central question is whether PSGEs are better served by autonomy or by the safety net of MLC oversight. Ultimately, 42 of the 73 PSGEs said they want to retain their own autonomy and not have MLC oversight. We explore what has happened and what this means below.

How the Supreme Court brought PSGEs under MLC oversight 

On 3 October 2024, the Supreme Court released the judgment of Nikora v Kruger. The dispute before the Court concerned the Tūhoe -Te Uru Taumatua Trust (TUT), Tūhoe’s PSGE. Paki Nikora considered that two of TUT’s seven trustees had not been selected in the manner required by TUT’s trust deed. He thought their appointments were invalid. He took his complaint to the MLC. The issue then became whether the MLC has jurisdiction over TUT.  

The Supreme Court found that a PSGE would come within the MLC’s supervisory jurisdiction under Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 (TTWMA) if: 

1. The PSGE is a private trust, and its settlement legislation does not exclude the MLC's supervisory jurisdiction over Māori trusts; 
2. The PSGE was constituted in respect of land; and 
3. The land the PSGE holds is either Māori land or General land owned by Māori.

The Supreme Court judgment sets the precedent for this supervisory jurisdiction to be applied to 73 PSGEs. Practically, this means the MLC may enforce trustee obligations, add or remove trustees, direct land management decisions, and, in limited circumstances, terminate a trust. The Supreme Court acknowledged that this creates "untidiness and uncertainty", particularly where PSGEs may move in and out of jurisdiction depending on their landholdings.

The Government’s response: restoring PSGE autonomy

The Government was concerned with this outcome. Through the Treaty settlement negotiations process, an iwi (or group of hapū) is required to create - and communities to ratify - a PSGE that is representative, transparent, and accountable, with effective dispute resolution processes. Under Nikora, PSGEs structured as private trusts and holding general land can be supervised by the MLC for any governance issues or internal disputes, despite the dispute resolution processes in the PSGE structure.

Accordingly, the Crown consulted with PSGEs on the Supreme Court’s decision, which has resulted in 42 PSGEs formally requesting to be exempted from the MLC’s supervisory regime.

What the Government is proposing

The Government is proposing a one‑off legislative fix that would:

1. remove MLC oversight (ss 237-245 TTWMA) for PSGEs unless there is an express exception made through regulations, but
2. preserve access to MLC's mediation services by consent, without enabling the Court to make binding orders.

This aim is to restore the original Treaty settlement intent - autonomous, iwi‑mandated entities supported by strong internal accountability.

Benefits and risks

Potential Benefits

1. Reinforces PSGEs’ autonomy as envisaged in settlement design;
2. Reduces compliance costs, litigation risks, and administrative burden;
3. Allows the internal dispute and accountability mechanisms to be considered first; and
4. Provides greater certainty by avoiding the fragmented, case‑specific outcomes created by Nikora.

Possible Implications

1. If things go wrong, it will cost more to resolve the dispute or issue; any dispute may need to go to the High Court, which is more costly and less accessible than the MLC.
2. Beneficiaries may lose access to an accessible and culturally grounded dispute forum; the judiciary in the MLC have significant expertise in tikanga Māori and te reo Māori, including, an understanding of the whanaungatanga and whakapapa aspects of some of the disputes/conflicts.
3. A more uneven PSGE landscape as some choose to retain MLC oversight while others opt out. There is almost an even split between PSGEs subject to MLC oversight, compared to those seeking to be removed from the jurisdiction. Those seeking to be removed may still be impacted by MLC decisions if any decisions have wider implications on PSGE governance.

Conclusion

The proposed reforms reflect a conscious decision by the Crown to prioritise PSGE autonomy by removing MLC oversight and leaving governance disputes to internal processes or, failing that, the general courts.

While this aligns with the original settlement intent and recognises PSGEs as capable and enduring institutions, it also shifts risk: where internal mechanisms fail, any escalation will likely occur in the High Court, with increased cost, complexity and reduced accessibility.

The reforms also sit within a broader constitutional trend under the current Government, in which PSGEs are increasingly treated as the Crown’s primary Treaty partners, with legislation reinforcing settlement frameworks rather than the Treaty itself. How this potential recalibration of autonomy, accountability and dispute resolution will operate in practice, and its impact on iwi and hapū mana and autonomy remains to be seen. It warrants close attention. See our earlier FYI on Te Ohu Kai Moana here outlining this issue and the potential litigation threat arising from it.

How we can help

If you have questions about these proposed reforms, or would like advice on how they may affect PSGE governance, dispute resolution settings, or risk management, please get in touch with one of the contacts below.

Special thanks to Leeroy Coleman Edmonds, a member of Te Paringa Tai, for drafting this article.