‘The Crown’s proposals are the most damaging collection of clear and considered legislative treaty breaches that I’ve seen,’ said one claimant.

The Waitangi Tribunal hearing for its inquiry into the government’s proposed amendments to treaty clauses in more than 20 pieces of legislation wrapped up just before 5pm last night, after two days of claimants from around the country presenting evidence. Many argued the proposal was unnecessary, contradictory, and will greatly diminish the government’s obligations.

The tribunal launched Te Tinihanga o Ngā Mātāpono o Te Tiriti – the Treaty Principles Reform Urgent Inquiry last month after deciding the application from Ngāti Hine met the “high threshold” required for an urgent inquiry, because the reforms could cause “significant and irreversible prejudice” to Māori if allowed to proceed without scrutiny.

According to minister of justice Paul Goldsmith, the proposals to change the government’s legislative duty under the statutes from “giving effect to” the treaty or treaty principles to “taking into account” seek to provide “consistency” and “certainty” around the government’s treaty obligations. However, opponents say the Crown is looking to excuse itself from legislative obligations to Māori by diminishing the legal burden placed upon it through the various clauses. Despite warnings from Ministry of Justice officials not to do so, Goldsmith developed and is implementing the “taking into account” approach.

While the changes may appear relatively superficial, legal experts and other submitters to the tribunal warned they would undo years of progress in the Māori-Crown relationship and cause serious harm to Māori. Here are 10 key takeaways from the hearing:

1. Pushback – whether from the public, its own officials or the Waitangi Tribunal – will not change the government’s commitment to making these changes.

Legal academic Carwyn Jones told the tribunal the Crown had “undertaken an engagement process that is woefully inadequate for the breadth and the significance of the proposals and their likely impact on all Māori across an extensive range of statutes and subject matter”.

In drafting the proposals, Goldsmith rejected advice from justice ministry officials, opting to instead create and adopt his own approach at the last minute. “Option five [Goldsmith’s proposal] has no apparent benefits and carries significant risks to the Māori-Crown relationship,” stated the regulatory impact statement.

The Waitangi Tribunal has been referred to as a toothless tiger before, and leaders and senior MPs of the coalition government have been openly critical of the tribunal in recent times. Just this morning, New Zealand First leader Winston Peters was on Waatea News criticising the tribunal for even holding an inquiry into the proposed changes.

Many of the submitters were doubtful the tribunal’s report or the select committee process would result in any meaningful changes to the proposals.

2. Māori-Crown relations are being stretched to breaking point.

“It makes me feel like a second-class citizen,” Hope Tupara, president of the Māori Women’s Welfare League, told the hearing of the proposals.

Former MP Tukoroirangi Morgan, chair of Te Arataura, the executive arm of Waikato-Tainui, called the government “the most racist, anti-Māori government that has ever taken power”. He said that despite being the country’s largest contractors in the hauora space, Tainui “couldn’t even get a meeting” with the government.

“As the first iwi to have negotiated a treaty settlement, you would have thought our established track record and our rapport – not only with this government but with previous governments – would amount to something meaningful,” Morgan said.

Carwyn Jones said “if the Crown’s proposals proceed, it will be one of the darkest days for te tiriti in all of its 186 years”.

Referencing a famous legal stoush his great grandfather, Wi Parata, was involved in, Andre Baker from Ātiawa ki Whakarongotai said “Judge Pendergrast declared that the treaty was a simple nullity, having been signed by primitive barbarians. I wonder whether that’s how our current minister sees us today.”

3. A lot can be undone in a single political term.

During his submission, Morgan said the government had undone “decades of progress” in Māori-Crown relations in “almost two and a half years flat”. Many of the submitters claimed the suite of changes brought in by the government since 2023 – including the disestablishment of Te Aka Whai Ora, prioritisation of English over te reo Māori, enabling the removal of Māori wards and repealing section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act – highlighted just how much the government had disempowered Māori.

4. Coalition agreements trump all.

The treaty clause review was promised in the National-New Zealand First coalition agreement, which said it was part of reversing initiatives that have “eroded the principle of equal citizenship”. While it is unclear if the review was a bottom line in negotiations, or if there was any pushback from National, the larger coalition party is not about to go back on its word and risk bringing down the government, no matter how much official advice or public opinion is against the proposal.

5. The flow-on effects of these changes could be massive.

Several claimants said removing the Crown’s statutory treaty obligations in various pieces of legislation would be detrimental to the wellbeing of Māori. Speaking on behalf of Smokefree Aotearoa, Hone Harawira said removing the treaty clause from the Smokefree Act would lead to more Māori dying from smoking-related illnesses in the next four years than died fighting for the Māori battalion in the second world war. Kirikowhai Mikaere, the lead technician for Te Kahui Raraunga, said the changes threatened Māori data sovereignty. Natalie Coates, representing the lead claimant Ngāti Hine, said the changes were “a matter of life and death”.

Charles Rahiri, chief executive of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Ranginui, said: “Treaty clauses ensure that the Crown must consider te tiriti when making decisions that directly affect us – remove them, and you remove the accountability and we return to being subservient to the dominant culture once again, where other people decide things on our behalf.

“The proposed reform undermines treaty settlements and the removal or dilution of treaty provisions will cause real and ongoing prejudice.” 

6. Consultation has been minimal at best.

Morgan said the National Iwi Chairs Forum was being treated by the government as a one-stop-shop box-tick for consultation with iwi, which was not what it was intended to be.

Margaret Mutu, a NICF executive member and chair of Te Rūnanga-ā-Iwi o Ngāti Kahu, said the forum had fewer than 20 days to consult with more than 85 Māori authorities about the proposed changes and gather their feedback. Mutu says Goldsmith informed the forum that the prime minister would meet with them about the proposals, but she was still yet to hear from Christopher Luxon.

7. Colonisation has never stopped.

Throughout submissions, there were references to recolonisation and the ongoing colonisation of Māori.

“The Crown’s proposals are the most damaging collection of clear and considered legislative treaty breaches that I’ve seen,” said Jones, while Mutu claimed “he [Goldsmith] would like to see the doctrine of discovery entrenched in this country and the preservation and continuation of the normalisation of racism against Māori”.

Meanwhile, Rahiri, representing Ngāti Ranginui, who settled its treaty claim last year, said “the Crown can not apologise in 2025 and repeat the same behaviours it apologised for in 2026. It cannot promise partnership and then legislate the mechanisms that uphold it. That is not how a treaty partner behaves.”

8. ‘Governments come and go. Iwi and hapū are forever.’

Those were the words uttered by Morgan near the end of his submission, bringing to mind a well-known whakataukī: “whatungarongaro te tangata, toitū te whenua – as man disappears from sight, the land remains”.

Morgan’s point was that while the government of the day may implement oppressive policy, iwi and hapū will still be here when the government eventually changes.

9. Treaty settlements are being treated as codification of treaty partnership.

Coates raised the point that the government was treating treaty settlements as a codification of treaty partnership by choosing to engage with settled entities rather than all hapū and iwi. She also highlighted that settled entities were being forced to use financial redress to fund litigation against the government, meaning they continued to be disadvantaged.

The damage was two-pronged, with some claimants highlighting that unsettled entities won’t feel they can enter agreements with this government in good faith, given its attitude towards Māori issues.

10. There are a lot of grey areas.

Speaking alongside Morgan, Waikato-Tainui chief executive Donna Flavell highlighted that the government was only choosing to review legislation where it was bound to “give effect to” te tiriti. She questioned why every piece of legislation that included this language wasn’t part of the review.

Aaron Taikato, manuhautū of Far North District Council’s Te Hono unit, spoke of his experience working for Corrections, the Department of Conservation and local government authorities. He said that in his experience, defining what “giving effect to” meant was very subjective and often left to whoever was in charge.

“White fragile systems will hire white fragile thinkers,” Taikato said.

The tribunal panel, consisting of Judge Caren Fox, Derek Fox, Paul Hamer and Kevin Prime, is now waiting for closing submissions from both the Crown and claimants before writing its report, which is expected to be published prior to the first reading of the bill, which is likely to be introduced to parliament early next month.