The Waitangi Tribunal has rejected a challenge from some Māori organisations about the role of iwi in resource management reforms, saying it found no treaty breach.
But it did endorse the role of non-tribal organisations like the Māori Council having a role in the reforms.
Under its proposed Natural and Built Environments Bill, the government has proposed regional planning committees with Māori representatives, with iwi and hapū taking a lead role in appointing them.
But the Māori Council, supported by pan-urban groups like the Federation of Māori Authorites, took an urgent claim last month, saying they deserved a lead role too.
To do otherwise, they argued, would constitute a breach, and that post-settlement iwi organisations were Crown constructs that did not represent all Māori.
That was a claim that outraged many iwi organisations, including Ngāti Whātua and Ngāi Tahu, who said that as mana whenua they were best positioned to determine representation on their land.
In its submission, Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu laid out the structures of its 18 papatipu rūnanga, and how it was mana whenua of Te Waipounamu.
Post-settlement entities, it argued, were not western, but modernisation of iwi and hapū structures.
In a response, several iwi said the Māori Council - formed by legislation in the 1960s - was a westernised institution that many whānau would not have heard of.
In its interim report published on Friday, the Tribunal found no breach in the setting up of the representation bodies, but it did note the details were still being worked out.
But it also affirmed that organisations like the Māori Council should be engaged in the process.
"We have found that the Crown's proposal that iwi and hapū should lead and facilitate the process to decide an appointing body is Treaty compliant at a high level of principle," it wrote.
"Noting that all the detail had not been decided at the time of the hearing."
In a statement, the New Zealand Māori Council said it endorsed the findings.
"The Waitangi Tribunal recognises that not just iwi, but hapū, urban Māori communities and Māori Land owners all have a role," it said.
"New Zealand Māori Council support the inclusive approach that the Tribunal has taken as being consistent with tikanga."
Māori Council national secretary Peter Fraser said representation was an important issue that needed to be considered by the tribunal.
"The council's primary concern was the proposed bill would incorporate a narrow selection process centred on iwi and focussed around Post Settlement Governance Entities only," Fraser said.
"It was the council's view that for the planning process to be legitimate, it needed to be representative and include hapū, Māori communities and land owners."
However, the Tribunal did say it was unable to reach a view on the overall process, with an eye on how treaty settlements will be transitioned into the new system.
"The bespoke arrangements negotiated through Treaty settlements and other processes would potentially trump or even displace the proposed appointments process in some regions," it wrote.
"This has understandably led to a loss of confidence in the Crown's ability to deliver what is proposed, and most parties expressed misgivings about this situation."
One example of this is the Ngāi Tahu Act 1996, where existing arrangements could trump the proposed reforms, with the iwi submitting: "The difficulty with the Crown proposal, from the Ngāi Tahu perspective, is that it is ambiguous and does not expressly state it will comply with its Treaty obligations to Ngāi Tahu."
The Crown responded that it would consider settlement acts, and work directly with iwi to ensure settlements are held.
A statement that offered little comfort to Ngāi Tahu: "Until the Crown's proposal expressly states it will be bound by the legislation, the view of Te Rūnana
"Until the Crown's proposal expressly states it will be bound by this legislation, the view of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu is that it is not compliant with its Treaty and statutory obligations."
