Government weighs funding for ancient waka on Rēkohu as court ruling narrows its options

Arts and Heritage Minister Paul Goldsmith has visited the site of an ancient waka on Rēkohu (Chatham Islands) but would not give any assurances about further government funding for its excavation and preservation, leaving the decision to Cabinet.

The waka, believed to be Rangihoua, a double-hulled ocean-going vessel thought to be part of an early migration from Hawaiki, was discovered nearly two years ago by the Dix whānau, who own the coastal land where roughly 750 fragments have since been recovered. It is estimated to be about 550 years old.

Goldsmith told RNZ a decision on funding would need to be made by Cabinet and he would not make commitments ahead of that process. The Government has been described as "open" to providing more money for the recovery (NZ Herald), but no commitment has been made.

The excavation site remains acutely vulnerable. The exposed section, believed to be about 10 percent of the entire waka, is still subject to erosion, storm surges and the risk of permanent loss. Archaeologists have warned that sandbags and other temporary protections are unlikely to withstand a major storm, and that repeatedly stopping and starting the excavation could cause further damage to the buried remains.

The funding standoff has played out against a shifting legal landscape. In the Māori Land Court, Judge Michael Doogan ruled that the Crown must protect the buried remains of the waka (RNZ, 2 August 2026). The court determined that the entire waka has been "found", including the parts still underground, meaning the Ministry for Culture and Heritage's statutory duty of care extends to the buried portions.

A statutory duty of care, in this context, means the Ministry has a legal obligation under the Protected Objects Act 1975 to safeguard newly found Māori archaeological material — objects classified as taonga tuturu, or treasures with cultural significance to Māori.

That ruling directly countered the position the Ministry for Culture and Heritage had taken in earlier court proceedings, where it argued its legal responsibilities extended only to pieces already uncovered, not those still buried. The Ministry also told the court it did not currently have funding for a full excavation and the conservation work that would follow.

Vincent Dix, of the Dix whānau who discovered the waka, spoke to RNZ's Checkpoint about Goldsmith's visit and the family's concerns about the site's exposure to the elements.

Te Pāti Māori MP Tākuta Ferris has publicly called on the Government to fund the recovery and preservation of the Rangihoua waka (Waatea News, Facebook). Commentary ahead of Cabinet's consideration has framed the funding decision as a straightforward one (Te Ao News, 24 July 2026).

The discovery has been described as one of the most significant archaeological finds ever made in Aotearoa and the wider Pacific (RNZ, 18 August 2026).

The broader context here is a familiar pattern in Crown obligations toward taonga tuturu under the Protected Objects Act 1975. The Ministry for Culture and Heritage has statutory duties to safeguard newly found Māori archaeological material, but putting those duties into practice — particularly when significant conservation funding is required — has historically needed a Cabinet appropriation, meaning ministers must formally approve the spending. The Doogan ruling narrows the scope for the Ministry to argue its responsibilities are limited to what has already been retrieved. Whether Cabinet treats that legal determination as compelling the funding decision, or as one factor among competing fiscal pressures, is the question now in front of ministers.

For those working in heritage policy and iwi relations, the case also raises practical questions about the Crown's readiness to respond to large-scale archaeological discoveries on private land in remote locations. The Chatham Islands' exposure to coastal weather systems means the window for recovery is not indefinite. Archaeologists have been explicit that a stop-start approach risks further damage, and that temporary physical protections have limited capacity against a serious storm event. The gap between a court-ordered duty of care and the fiscal decision needed to give effect to it is where this now sits.