The Waitangi Tribunal today slammed the government's handling of the Rena negotiations in an interim decision released just over a week ahead of the Cabinet's $10.4 million Rena decision on July 28.

The decision made public at noon today finds the Crown's conduct in failing to include or consult Motiti Islanders over negotiations with the Rena owners and insurers following the grounding of the containership on Otaiti (Astrolabe) Reef, breached the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.

To see more images and coverage of the first year after the grounding click here.

The Tribunal finds the Crown's consultation process with Motiti Maori failed to fulfil its duty to actively protect Maori and their taonga and in turn the Crown breached the Treaty principles of good faith and partnership.

The reef is a taonga to the claimants, who are Maori living on or affiliating to Motiti Island.

'Motiti Maori are an isolated island community in an especially vulnerable position,” says the decision.

'The Tribunal considered that they would bear the brunt of what seems likely to be significant adverse cultural and environmental effects if the wreck is allowed to remain on the reef.”

The container ship struck the Astrolabe Reef about 25km off the coast of Tauranga on October 5, 2011 spilling tonnes of oil that caused one of New Zealand's biggest environmental disasters.

Earlier this month the Waitangi Tribunal held an urgent hearing in Tauranga into claims made by Motiti Rohe Moana Trust, the Mataatua District Maori Council and Ngai Te Hapu Incorporated Society that the Crown breached the Treaty.

The claims relate to consultation between Crown and affected Maori over the government's 2012 settlement with the owners and insurers.

The Crown entered into negotiations with the owners and insurers of the Rena in late 2011, to settle the Crown's and specific Crown agencies' claims arising from the grounding, particularly $47 million spent on cleaning up oil and cargo that spilled in the weeks and months after the ship struck the reef.

Three deeds of settlement were signed in October 2012: the Claims Deed, the Indemnity Deed, and the Wreck Removal Deed.

The settlement included $27.6 million for Crown's claims against the owners for clean-up costs. In the Indemnity Deed the Crown agreed to indemnify the owners against ‘certain claims by New Zealand public and local government claimants' to a maximum of $38 million.

An additional $10.4million would be paid "for public purposes" to the Crown if the remainder of the wreck can be left on the reef.

'We understand that a similar deed obliges the Bay of Plenty Regional Council to consider submitting in support of any resource consent application,” states the interim decision.

'This deed has not been placed in evidence before us.”

During the hearing spokesman Buddy Mikaere said local Maori were left out of consultation.

In May, 2013 concerned Maori lodged claims with the Tribunal due to shared concerns about whether the Crown would ensure that the wreck was removed, and about how the Crown was consulting with them.

On May 30, 2014 the Astrolabe Community Trust, on behalf of the Rena owners, lodged a resource consent application seeking to leave part of the wreck on the reef. The closing date for submissions is August 8.

The Waitangi Tribunal was told during the hearing at Tauranga in early July that Cabinet will meet on July 28 to discuss whether the Crown will make a submission on the owners' resource consent application.

Between November 2013 and June 2014 the government began a consultation process seeking Maori views.

The interim Tribunal decision considers the Crown's consultation with Maori was 'neither robust nor meaningful”.

'The consultation process neither adequately informed the Crown of Maori views, nor adequately equipped Maori to participate usefully or with informed insight in the resource consent process."

In its decision the tribunal says the speed of the government's consultation process with Motiti Islanders since the application to leave the wreck was lodged suggests the Crown sought Maori views to inform its own stance, rather than helping Maori participate in the process.

The Crown sent letters to 20 Maori groups inviting them to three consultation sessions from November last year.

'Despite receiving only a few responses to the November 2013 letter and knowing by 31 January 2014 that a resource consent application was imminent, the Ministry for the Environment did not send a follow-up letter until 29 April 2014.

'In other words, of the 20 or so groups that had not responded to the Crown's initial November letter, all but two heard nothing from the Crown in the months after it became clear there would be an application.”

The Tribunal also says the Crown's consultation didn't take into account the resourcing difficulties of the Motiti Islanders, particularly in light of the tight timeframes, and the length and complexity of the owners' resource consent application.

The Crown didn't provide Maori any assistance for the consultation process beyond flying Crown officials to Tauranga for meetings, says the tribunal.

The Crown refused to pay for kaumatua Graeme Hoete to travel from Motiti to Tauranga or for the professional and travel fees of their planner, Graeme Lawrence, to attend the meeting.

Ngai Te Hapu were unable to meet with the Crown because the Ministry for the Environment refused to pay for their travel to Wellington or their lawyers' travel to Tauranga.

The reports finds the Crown failed to properly appreciate the practical difficulties faced by the Motiti claimants in responding to the resource consent application.

'In the absence of independent expert advice, it is difficult to imagine what kind of ‘detailed feedback' could be provided on a 1600-page document of expert evidence in just two weeks, as the Crown's June 6 letter suggested,” says the Tribunal.

'The Crown needed to provide information to Maori to ensure they were adequately informed.”

The Tribunal finds the Crown's consultation process failed to fulfil its duty to actively protect Maori and their taonga.

'The Crown faces a significant if not insurmountable challenge to remedy the situation within the resource consent process given the Crown's actions to date and the time available,” says the Tribunal's interim decision.

It made a number of recommendations to the Crown in considering its submission on the application to leave the wreck on the reef.

(a) The adverse effects of the continued presence of the Rena in its rapidly degrading form on the reef, including: the bow section, which is wedged on the top of the reef, one metre below the low tide mark ; the balance of the hull and superstructure, situated further down the reef, which is subject to strong ocean currents ; the large debris field on and around the reef ; and the potential for continued discharge as containing structures break down further, potentially releasing further contaminants.

(b) The effects on Maori as to the limitations on use of their taonga, which are significant either in direct physical terms, potentially from further discharges, and in perception terms, knowing of the existence of the vast debris tonnage lying in, on and around the reef.

(c) The fact that the grant of a resource consent in these circumstances imposes solely adverse effects on the environment, including the affected community on Motiti.

(d) That the feasibility of removal or mitigation of adverse effects may be different depending on which part or parts of the wreck or its former contents are under consideration for retention, that is: the bow section, the balance of the hull and superstructure; or the large debris field on and around the reef.

It also recommends that is the Crown decides to make a submission in respect of the owners' application, whether in support, opposition, or neutral:

(a) It should submit that the decision-maker accept that Otaiti Reef is a taonga.

(b) It should submit to the decision-maker that, as a consequence of the reef being a taonga, that status elevates the protection of Otaiti Reef to be a matter of national importance in terms of section 6(e) of the Resource Management Act 1991.

(c) It should ensure a Crown submission seeks that, if any consent was to be granted, that monitoring and mitigating conditions are imposed to reduce the effects on the taonga of Otaiti and on the coastal environment of Motiti and its community to a sustainable level as far as is possible.

The Tribunal's will release a final report dealing with these issues and others in more detail, and provide further recommendations.